Facts LNT'ers Just HATE! (#2)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Martybaugh...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
much...@hotmail.com
much...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Timst...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments on these
questions.
**********************************************************************
The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object on the AP X-ray - which was never
seen prior to the Clark Panel. The prosectors were beyond incompetent to miss
seeing it... yet they did!
As one writer notes, even his children were able to quickly pick out the object,
since it's by *FAR* the largest object seen in the AP X-ray that clearly didn't
belong there.
How do you explain such impossible incompetence? You can't.
Honesty will compel LNT'ers & Trolls to admit that the object was *NOT* there on
the evening of the autopsy. (But they won't...)
LNT'ers frequently ask for *physical evidence* of conspiracy, yet when presented
with it (this being an excellent example) they run from it.
If they are willing to speak at all, most LNT'ers will simply lie about it. For
an excellent example, look up John McAdam's responses to a thread on this
topic...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
j leyden
> **********************************************************************
> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks
Note to Lurkers: Again take note of Ben's extensive Enemies List
below. This guy is afraid of everybody. Checks under his bed before
retiring, sleeps with a night light, etc. You know the clinical name
for this particular disorder. Also he continues to spit in our eyes
by SPAMing us with a promo for his cheesy webwsite,"Make Big Bucks on
the internet." Are you even going to give this poor soul the time of
day?
JGL
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object on the AP X-ray - which was never
>seen prior to the Clark Panel. The prosectors were beyond incompetent to miss
>seeing it... yet they did!
>
>As one writer notes, even his children were able to quickly pick out the object,
>since it's by *FAR* the largest object seen in the AP X-ray that clearly didn't
>belong there.
>
>How do you explain such impossible incompetence? You can't.
>
>Honesty will compel LNT'ers & Trolls to admit that the object was *NOT* there on
>the evening of the autopsy. (But they won't...)
>
>LNT'ers frequently ask for *physical evidence* of conspiracy, yet when presented
>with it (this being an excellent example) they run from it.
>
Your whole argument is dependent on the idea that the fragment *would*
have been included in the autopsy report, had it been there.
But that's a very strong assumption.
The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
to "move" the entry defect.
But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
the location of the defect.
I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
And then there is the fact that the photo of the back of Kennedy's
head, with the scalp held up, shows the defect in a location
consistent with the entry shown in the AP x-rays.
Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
shooter from behind, in the TSBD, so why bother to mount an elaborate
plot to "move" it?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j leyden
Lurkers, let me add something to my previous post. Ben, deceptive
little rascal that he is, talks about the Clark Panel but, ooops,
neglects to mention its findings. Permit me:
"Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-
rays taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by
two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which
traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking
bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and
exploded its right side."
IOW, if there were someone on the GK, he (or she) was a the world's
worst marksman/woman. Hit nothing. So you have to be careful in
reading CTs because they never tell the whole truth. They love to
quote the WC out of context, for example, but neglect, ooops, to
mention that the WC found Oswald guilty as sin. It's rather like me
describing the last Super Bowl and citing all the Indy Colts fine
plays but leaving out that game-killing interception near the end and
the fact that the N.O. Saints won the game. Gotta watch those guys,
especially Ben..
JGL
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Canal
>
>On 25 Mar 2010 07:02:23 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object on the AP X-ray - which was never
>>seen prior to the Clark Panel. The prosectors were beyond incompetent to miss
>>seeing it... yet they did!
>>
>>As one writer notes, even his children were able to quickly pick out the object,
>>since it's by *FAR* the largest object seen in the AP X-ray that clearly didn't
>>belong there.
>>
>>How do you explain such impossible incompetence? You can't.
>>
>>Honesty will compel LNT'ers & Trolls to admit that the object was *NOT* there on
>>the evening of the autopsy. (But they won't...)
>>
>>LNT'ers frequently ask for *physical evidence* of conspiracy, yet when presented
>>with it (this being an excellent example) they run from it.
>>
>
>Your whole argument is dependent on the idea that the fragment *would*
>have been included in the autopsy report, had it been there.
>
>But that's a very strong assumption.
No it's not .john. We're talking about one of the most historically
significant autopsies in the 20th century....and, relatively speaking, the
6.5 mm opacity was huge.....with a strange shape, size, and
location...there's no way such an opacity wouldn't be noted in the
report...if it was there on 11-22-63.
I know you're not interested in receiving a crash course on the 6.5 mm
opacity, but perhaps others are. Having studied the head shot almost
exclusively for about ten years I think I can advance a pretty plausible
theory regarding this issue. Anyway, here goes.
The fact is it wasn't on the AP film on 11-22-63...but it was there before
Humes testified in Mar/64....yes, Humes got a "sneek-peek" at the X-rays,
in spite of what he said, in preparation for his testimony.
Note that both Custer and Ebersole testified Ebersole was summoned to the
White House (as you recall, our paranoid fiend, Burkley--evidently a CT
until he died--had an office there). Ebersole was given the x-rays
allegedly to take measurements from--with a code name for that job, "Aunt
Margret's Skirts--LOL), so can anyone imagine Humes NOT having access to
them before he testified? Don't be naive...of course Humes saw them.
Now when he did see them in preparation for his Mar/64 testimony, he must
have been shocked, "Geesh, how the heck did we miss seeing that huge
opacity on 11-22-63?"
Humes, assuming no one would dare alter the films, naturally looked on the
lateral for a opacity that corresponded to the 6.5 mm one on the AP.....of
course he was lost....he guessed that it was behind the right eye.
Regardless, he and Specter decided it was time--"better late than
never"--to get it into the record so historians wouldn't think they[HB&F]
were blind. They even had Rydberg draw the imaginary mysterious opacity
[as it would be later named, "the 6.5 mm opacity"]---that's the large
fragment shown behind the right eye on CE-388. The only thing is that
Humes must have forgtten his neuroanatomy...or that he said the entry was
near the EOP...because any large fragment bhid the right eye would have
crashed through the cerebellum to get there...and the cerebellum showed no
such damage. Nice try, Jim. :-)
In any event, Specter asked Humes a series of awkward questions about the
large opacity "behind the right eye". Humes lies (for the good of the
nation, of coures...so that was not reallying lying?) and says something
like, "Oh yah, I think we recovered that". Sorry, Jim....the ones you
recovered were medical miles from behind the right eye...in fact the two
recovered ones were close together (above the frontal sinus) and you can
see one on the lateral...it's far from behind the right eye.
BTW, don't let Pat Speer tell you thatabove the frontal sinus against the
inner table of the skull is the same as behind the right eye.....don't
believe me, look on the lateral and judge that for yourself.
Sooooo, by the time HB&F testified to the ARRB 36 years later, they
finally figured out the 6.5 mm opacity wasn't on the AP on
11-22-63.......and none of them said they recalled seeing and/or
recovering it.
Some other notes of interest.
1)Its [the 6.5 mm opacity] optical density doesn't correspond with it
being metal.
2) there is only a bone-density opacity in the cowlick in that area on the
lateral...no metal.
3) Morgan was the frst to report it, but didn't say it was a piece of the
bullet that entered the BOH.
4) Fisher guessed saying it was a ricochet fragment...ya right, Russell,
an opacity the same diameter as the ammo LHO used accidently got itself
one inch right of mid-line, the same distance as both proposed enry
wounds??????????
5). No one dared claim the opacity represented a piece of the bullet that
entered the BOH,.......until the Rockefeller experts did. You can take it
to the bank that Lattimer convinced them it was so...because he recalled
that a piece of the lead ball that entered Lincoln's BOH scraped off on
the skull ear the entry. Hence forth, that opacity was deemed to represent
a piece of the bullet and became added "ammunition" (no pun intended) for
Baden et al.'s cowlick entry myth.
^ow. ask any wound-ballistics expert if they think an almost round slice
of a bullet, the same diameter as that round, could imbed itself in the
outter table of the sull 1.0 cm below where it [the bullet entered].
>The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
>to "move" the entry defect.
>
>But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
>defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
>the location of the defect.
.john, read the reports of the HSCA radiologists...they fail to say that
the fractures extended "all the way" to the 6.5 mm opacity....they come up
short...and that means they couldn't have been caused by a bullet entering
there.
>I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
The fractures are real, but they weren't caused by the bullet that
alleedly entered there.
>And then there is the fact that the photo of the back of Kennedy's
>head, with the scalp held up, shows the defect in a location
>consistent with the entry shown in the AP x-rays.
Yes, it does, but don't forget to add that those pictures were taken after
midnight during the process to repair his head in prepapartion for an
open-casket funeral. Also, the photo of the entry in the skull shows it to
be near the EOP. And even though you claim the defect that I say is the
entry is NOT the entry, you did correctly say it was deep inside the
cranial cavity. As far as that goes show me another beveled semi-circular
defect in the rear of the skull if you can find one...there isn't one and
the one I've been calling the entry is the one and only entry!
>Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
>shooter from behind, in the TSBD, so why bother to mount an elaborate
>plot to "move" it?
On the surface it didn't "appear" to be consistent with a shot from six
floors up (bcause no one considered the possibility that, even though its
nose was badly deformed, it deflected up about 23 degrees--like many of
Lattmer's test bullets--as it penetrated the skull). That's why the silly
comment was dreamed up (that I think even you have used), "Any bullet
entering near the EOP must have been fired from the trunk". Remember that
one, .john?.....as if he's still reading this...I must stop being naive
myself.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Ben Holmes
Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above material.
In article <4baba574....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 25 Mar 2010 07:02:23 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object on the AP X-ray - which was never
>>seen prior to the Clark Panel. The prosectors were beyond incompetent to miss
>>seeing it... yet they did!
>>
>>As one writer notes, even his children were able to quickly pick out the
object,
>>since it's by *FAR* the largest object seen in the AP X-ray that clearly
didn't
>>belong there.
>>
>>How do you explain such impossible incompetence? You can't.
>>
>>Honesty will compel LNT'ers & Trolls to admit that the object was *NOT* there
on
>>the evening of the autopsy. (But they won't...)
>>
>>LNT'ers frequently ask for *physical evidence* of conspiracy, yet when
presented
>>with it (this being an excellent example) they run from it.
>>
>
>Your whole argument is dependent on the idea that the fragment *would*
>have been included in the autopsy report, had it been there.
Only incredibly idiocy would allow someone to suspect otherwise, John.
Are you *REALLY* going to try to argue that a virtually round, 6.5mm fragment
seen in the X-rays is going to go unremarked on?
One that's tremendously larger than any other fragment seen in the X-ray?
(Remember how you evaded this point last time?)
Just how stupid do you believe your audience is, John?
>But that's a very strong assumption.
It's an assumption so normal that to think otherwise is beyond kooky, John.
>The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
>to "move" the entry defect.
You don't have to argue for or against that, John.
You simply have to explain it.
>But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
>defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
>the location of the defect.
You can believe that if you want to John. What you *can't* do is explain this
6.5mm virtually round object.
I still recall your *last* attempt at explaining this one, John... you ran away
then too.
>I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
John... you have to EXPLAIN the evidence. Why aren't you doing so?
>And then there is the fact that the photo of the back of Kennedy's
>head, with the scalp held up, shows the defect in a location
>consistent with the entry shown in the AP x-rays.
You can believe this if you want, John. What you apparently cannot do is EXPLAIN
THE EVIDENCE! Don't you just HATE that!?
>Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
>shooter from behind, in the TSBD,
An entry ANYWHERE ON THE REAR of JFK would be perfectly consistent with a
shooter from behind, John. The problem *YOU* have is that the trajectory simply
doesn't work from where the entry was described at the autopsy.
It really doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out where a bullet would
exit ... originating high up, and entering near the EOP.
A fact that I'm sure you hate just as much as the 6.5mm virtually round object
in the AP X-ray.
>so why bother to mount an elaborate
>plot to "move" it?
Sorry John... it's historical *FACT* that the entry was moved. So why not
explain why it moved, John?
>.John
Tell us John... can you cite any posts appearing in your censored forum that you
allow to be posted after *YOU* (or other "moderators") snip out material you
don't like?
j leyden
> **********************************************************************
> Tell us John... can you cite any posts appearing in your censored forum that you
> allow to be posted after *YOU* (or other "moderators") snip out material you
> don't like?
This is Ben trying to rationalize his fear of posting on AAJ where he
can't call those who disagree with him cowards, liars and morons. And
those familiar with Ben's posts know that's pretty much his basic
technique. They also probably won't let him promo his cheesy "Make
Big Bucks on the Internet" website which is the only reason he's here
in the first place. Swell Guy.
JGL
> In article <4baba574.3201958...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <4baba574....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 25 Mar 2010 07:02:23 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object on the AP X-ray - which was never
>>>seen prior to the Clark Panel. The prosectors were beyond incompetent to miss
>>>seeing it... yet they did!
>>>
>>>As one writer notes, even his children were able to quickly pick out the
>object,
>>>since it's by *FAR* the largest object seen in the AP X-ray that clearly
>didn't
>>>belong there.
>>>
>>>How do you explain such impossible incompetence? You can't.
>>>
>>>Honesty will compel LNT'ers & Trolls to admit that the object was *NOT* there
>on
>>>the evening of the autopsy. (But they won't...)
>>>
>>>LNT'ers frequently ask for *physical evidence* of conspiracy, yet when
>presented
>>>with it (this being an excellent example) they run from it.
>>>
>>
>>Your whole argument is dependent on the idea that the fragment *would*
>>have been included in the autopsy report, had it been there.
>
>
>Only incredibly idiocy would allow someone to suspect otherwise, John.
>
You just aren't very sophisticated about how the world works, Ben.
You think you can just *posit* that something ought to have been done,
and it's sinister if it wasn't.
In fact, the fragment probably means very little to the prosectors.
>
>Are you *REALLY* going to try to argue that a virtually round, 6.5mm fragment
>seen in the X-rays is going to go unremarked on?
>
>One that's tremendously larger than any other fragment seen in the X-ray?
>(Remember how you evaded this point last time?)
>
>Just how stupid do you believe your audience is, John?
>
Not stupid enough to believe your arguments.
>
>>The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
>>to "move" the entry defect.
>
>
>You don't have to argue for or against that, John.
>
>You simply have to explain it.
>
No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
wound.
If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
want to tamper with the x-rays.
>
>>But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
>>defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
>>the location of the defect.
>
>
>You can believe that if you want to John. What you *can't* do is explain this
>6.5mm virtually round object.
>
You have no evidence except you dogged insistence that it *should*
have been mentioned in the autopsy report.
That's all.
>I still recall your *last* attempt at explaining this one, John... you ran away
>then too.
No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
wound.
If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
want to tamper with the x-rays.
>
>
>>I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
>
>
>John... you have to EXPLAIN the evidence. Why aren't you doing so?
>
There is nothing to explain.
You just *posit* something that suits you, and demand an
"explanation."
>
>>And then there is the fact that the photo of the back of Kennedy's
>>head, with the scalp held up, shows the defect in a location
>>consistent with the entry shown in the AP x-rays.
>
>
>You can believe this if you want, John. What you apparently cannot do is EXPLAIN
>THE EVIDENCE! Don't you just HATE that!?
>
Sashay(tm)!!!
No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
wound.
If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
want to tamper with the x-rays.
>
>>Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
>>shooter from behind, in the TSBD,
>
>An entry ANYWHERE ON THE REAR of JFK would be perfectly consistent with a
>shooter from behind, John. The problem *YOU* have is that the trajectory simply
>doesn't work from where the entry was described at the autopsy.
>
But the entry described at the autopsy was not correct.
I've explain all the evidence that the real entry was higher, and
you've ignored it.
Deal with it.
BUT WAIT, YOU EDITED ALL OF THAT OUT!
Can't deal with it, can you?
If you can't, people will conclude that you are just a typical buff,
with a few stereotyped talking points, but no understanding of
evidence.
>It really doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out where a bullet would
>exit ... originating high up, and entering near the EOP.
>
>A fact that I'm sure you hate just as much as the 6.5mm virtually round object
>in the AP X-ray.
>
You have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry wound.
If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
want to tamper with the x-rays.
If you can't offer any plausible explanation, we have to conclude it
didn't happen.
All your huffing and puffing doesn't change that.
>
>
>>so why bother to mount an elaborate
>>plot to "move" it?
>
>
>Sorry John... it's historical *FACT* that the entry was moved. So why not
>explain why it moved, John?
>
No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
wound.
If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
want to tamper with the x-rays.
John Canal
>No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
>wound.
>
>If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
>want to tamper with the x-rays.
There's proof they were worried that the near-EOP entry might be
interpreted as evidence the bullet wasn't fired from the SN. It's the
Rydberg drawing...in order to make Humes' "straight-through-the-head"
trajectory line up with the SM they leaned JFK forward appx. 50 degrees
when his actual lean was only about 27 dgrees. I pointed that out to you
years ago, but you ignored me.
So the concern about their near EOP was there....instead of showing a
grossly inaccurate lean in CE-388, others--probably unbeknownst to
Humes--added the 6.5 mm opacity to move the entry up, so that a
"straight-through-the-head" trajectory WOULD line up with the SN...f
couse, it didn't but the effort was made.
Speaking of ignoring:
Now, .john, if we debated these issues in front of an audience, would you
just ignore my explanations like you did my earlier reply in this thread?
Or, would you just tell the moderator or audience that my explanations are
too arcane (as you've said before).....or would you tell the truth, i.e.
that you ignore me because you don't have a firm grasp of the medical
evidence in this case and have difficulty debating me regarding that
evidence?
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Ben Holmes
In article <4bac0f79....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
Getting rather desperate, aren't you John?
You know quite well that folks at the autopsy were quite serious in their
efforts to locate bullets or bullet fragments, yet you seem to actually think
that they'd simply skip over a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
Tell us John... are you trying to sell lurkers the London bridge?
>>Are you *REALLY* going to try to argue that a virtually round, 6.5mm fragment
>>seen in the X-rays is going to go unremarked on?
>>
>>One that's tremendously larger than any other fragment seen in the X-ray?
>>(Remember how you evaded this point last time?)
>>
>>Just how stupid do you believe your audience is, John?
>>
>
>Not stupid enough to believe your arguments.
That's okay John... I'll be happy to put this thread to a poll of the American
people.
But you already know what the results would be, don't you?
>>>The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
>>>to "move" the entry defect.
>>
>>
>>You don't have to argue for or against that, John.
>>
>>You simply have to explain it.
>>
>
>No,
You can keep running away from explaining the evidence in reasonable and
non-conspiratorial terms John... but I'm just going to keep pointing this out.
>you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
>wound.
It's simple John... it was an impossible trajectory.
By moving the entry up (and it's HISTORICAL FACT that this was done), the
proposed trajectory began to look possible, even probable...
Which was a great improvement over an *IMPOSSIBLE* trajectory.
>If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
>want to tamper with the x-rays.
Keep running John... but you'll soon quit... because you simply CANNOT provide
reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence in this case.
>>>But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
>>>defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
>>>the location of the defect.
>>
>>
>>You can believe that if you want to John. What you *can't* do is explain this
>>6.5mm virtually round object.
>>
>
>You have no evidence
John... I have a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
That's PHYSICAL EVIDENCE... something you keep denying that CT'ers have.
You have to explain it. Why can't you?
>except you dogged insistence that it *should*
>have been mentioned in the autopsy report.
Care to put it to a poll, John?
>That's all.
It's more than enough. Sorta like saying, "Yes John, the Sun will come up in the
morning." ... realizing that while it may not be a perfectly scientific
statement, it *is*, nevertheless, just as accurate and true as the fact that it
would have been impossible for the doctors, and associated autopsy staff to miss
a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
Yet they did.
And you can't explain it.
>> I still recall your *last* attempt at explaining this one, John... you
>> ran away then too.
>
>No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
>wound.
Did so above. Would *YOU* like to revisit your last attempt at explaining this
object?
>If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
>want to tamper with the x-rays.
Repeating yourself, John. I've answered... and more importantly, I've given a
perfectly reasonable and understandable reason.
IT'S HISTORICAL FACT that the entry was moved up approx. 4 inches...
>>>I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
>>
>>
>>John... you have to EXPLAIN the evidence. Why aren't you doing so?
>>
>
>There is nothing to explain.
Yes John, there is. Why wasn't the 6.5mm virtually round object seen during the
autopsy?
>You just *posit* something that suits you, and demand an
>"explanation."
The evidence is there, John. I didn't invent it. It exists... *YOU* have to
explain it. In reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms.
The fact that you can't is vastly amusing to me!!
>>>And then there is the fact that the photo of the back of Kennedy's
>>>head, with the scalp held up, shows the defect in a location
>>>consistent with the entry shown in the AP x-rays.
>>
>>
>>You can believe this if you want, John. What you apparently cannot do is EXPLAIN
>>THE EVIDENCE! Don't you just HATE that!?
>>
>
>Sashay(tm)!!!
>
>No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
>wound.
Been there, done that. Sashay away John... but what you cannot do is explain the
actual evidence in this case in reasonable, and non-conspiratorial terms.
>If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
>want to tamper with the x-rays.
You're getting a horrible case of repeating yourself, John.
>>>Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
>>>shooter from behind, in the TSBD,
>>
>>An entry ANYWHERE ON THE REAR of JFK would be perfectly consistent with a
>>shooter from behind, John. The problem *YOU* have is that the trajectory simply
>>doesn't work from where the entry was described at the autopsy.
>>
>
>But the entry described at the autopsy was not correct.
They handled the body, John. The *ONLY* thing you have to contradict them is
photographs and X-rays with no chain of custody... indeed, that not only
contradict each other, but have impossible features... Such as the white patch
that is impossibly dense.
It's amusing that not only do you dismiss over 40 medical eyewitnesses, YOU ALSO
ARE FORCED TO DISMISS THE AUTOPSY!!
>I've explain all the evidence that the real entry was higher, and
>you've ignored it.
Sorry John... your "evidence" needs work. You're quite well aware of the fact
that photographs and X-rays are treated just like written notes by the legal
system.
>Deal with it.
>
>BUT WAIT, YOU EDITED ALL OF THAT OUT!
>
>Can't deal with it, can you?
John, it's time to label you a liar again. I edited *NOTHING* out of the post.
>If you can't, people will conclude that you are just a typical buff,
>with a few stereotyped talking points, but no understanding of
>evidence.
And yet, there it is... the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... and
*STILL* no reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanation for how it was missed
during the autopsy.
Ad hominem isn't going to get the job done, John.
>>It really doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out where a bullet would
>>exit ... originating high up, and entering near the EOP.
>>
>>A fact that I'm sure you hate just as much as the 6.5mm virtually round object
>>in the AP X-ray.
>>
>
>You have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry wound.
Done so. I *do* hope you won't keep repeating this as if it hasn't been
completely answered.
>If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
>want to tamper with the x-rays.
Done so. I *do* hope you won't keep repeating this as if it hasn't been
completely answered.
>If you can't offer any plausible explanation, we have to conclude it
>didn't happen.
And since I offered a *COMPLETELY* plausible and reasonable explanation, you're
ready to accept it?
>All your huffing and puffing doesn't change that.
You can keep running John... but these posts stay up here for a long time... and
lurkers will see that you cannot provide reasonable and non-conspiratorial
explanations for the evidence in this case.
>>>so why bother to mount an elaborate
>>>plot to "move" it?
>>
>>
>>Sorry John... it's historical *FACT* that the entry was moved. So why not
>>explain why it moved, John?
>>
>
>No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
>wound.
Done so. I *do* hope you won't keep repeating this as if it hasn't been
completely answered.
>If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
>want to tamper with the x-rays.
Done so. I *do* hope you won't keep repeating this as if it hasn't been
completely answered.
>.John
I have the feeling that this is the last post by John... I've answered his
questions, and he has no-where to go but to highlight his refusal to provide
reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations...
As well, he's been pointed out as a liar for asserting that I "edited" any part
of this post out. That simply did not happen, and John cannot quote anything
that I've snipped.
Can I expect a retraction for that lie, John?
aeffects
> On Mar 25, 8:11 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > **********************************************************************
> > Tell us John... can you cite any posts appearing in your censored forum that you
> > allow to be posted after *YOU* (or other "moderators") snip out material you
> > don't like?
>
> This is Ben trying to rationalize his fear of posting on AAJ where he
> can't call those who disagree with him cowards, liars and morons. And
> those familiar with Ben's posts know that's pretty much his basic
> technique. They also probably won't let him promo his cheesy "Make
> Big Bucks on the Internet" website which is the only reason he's here
> in the first place. Swell Guy.
sitdown there little guy, you're cluttering up the thread -- better
yet watch, we know you've no command re case evidence. Ya might even
learn sump'in , Jer, er JGL, er j leyden, er jlogan...er whoever you
are...
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 25, 6:43=A0pm, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 8:11 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > **********************************************************************
> that you
>> > allow to be posted after *YOU* (or other "moderators") snip out materia=
>l you
>> > don't like?
>>
>> This is Ben trying to rationalize his fear of posting on AAJ where he
>> can't call those who disagree with him cowards, liars and morons. And
>> those familiar with Ben's posts know that's pretty much his basic
>> technique. They also probably won't let him promo his cheesy "Make
>> Big Bucks on the Internet" website which is the only reason he's here
>> in the first place. Swell Guy.
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
>sitdown there little guy, you're cluttering up the thread -- better
>yet watch, we know you've no command re case evidence. Ya might even
>learn sump'in , Jer, er JGL, er j leyden, er jlogan...er whoever you
>are...
"JGL" is well illustrating the purpose of my troll warning...
>> JGL
>>
>> > Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's =
>only
>> > purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change=
>> > Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simp=
>ly deny
>> > the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or sim=
>ply run
>> > with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>>
>> > * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, bu=
>t he's
>> > amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>>
>> > The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, clai=
>ming to
>> > be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments =
>on these
>> > questions.
>> > **********************************************************************
>>
>> > Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his c=
>ensored
>> > group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to all=
>ow, or
>> > disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's ha=
>d the
>> > last word, and that I won't respond.
>>
>> > However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, a=
>nd if
>> > past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and ref=
>use to
>> > support his claims.
>>
>> > John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above mat=
>erial.
>> > In article <4baba574.3201958...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says.=
>..
>>
>> > >On 25 Mar 2010 07:02:23 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> > >wrote:
>>
>> > >>The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object on the AP X-ray - which w=
>as never
>> > >>seen prior to the Clark Panel. The prosectors were beyond incompetent=
> to miss
>> > >>seeing it... yet they did!
>>
>> > >>As one writer notes, even his children were able to quickly pick out =
>the
>> > object,
>> > >>since it's by *FAR* the largest object seen in the AP X-ray that clea=
>rly
>> > didn't
>> > >>belong there.
>>
>> > >>How do you explain such impossible incompetence? You can't.
>>
>> > >>Honesty will compel LNT'ers & Trolls to admit that the object was *NO=
>T* there
>> > on
>> > >>the evening of the autopsy. (But they won't...)
>>
>> > >>LNT'ers frequently ask for *physical evidence* of conspiracy, yet whe=
>n
>> > presented
>> > >>with it (this being an excellent example) they run from it.
>>
>> > >Your whole argument is dependent on the idea that the fragment *would*
>> > >have been included in the autopsy report, had it been there.
>>
>> > Only incredibly idiocy would allow someone to suspect otherwise, John.
>>
>> > Are you *REALLY* going to try to argue that a virtually round, 6.5mm fr=
>agment
>> > seen in the X-rays is going to go unremarked on?
>>
>> > One that's tremendously larger than any other fragment seen in the X-ra=
>y?
>> > (Remember how you evaded this point last time?)
>>
>> > Just how stupid do you believe your audience is, John?
>>
>> > >But that's a very strong assumption.
>>
>> > It's an assumption so normal that to think otherwise is beyond kooky, J=
>ohn.
>>
>> > >The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
>> > >to "move" the entry defect.
>>
>> > You don't have to argue for or against that, John.
>>
>> > You simply have to explain it.
>>
>> > >But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
>> > >defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
>> > >the location of the defect.
>>
>> > You can believe that if you want to John. What you *can't* do is explai=
>n this
>> > 6.5mm virtually round object.
>>
>> > I still recall your *last* attempt at explaining this one, John... you =
>ran away
>> > then too.
>>
>> > >I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
>>
>> > John... you have to EXPLAIN the evidence. Why aren't you doing so?
>>
>> > >And then there is the fact that the photo of the back of Kennedy's
>> > >head, with the scalp held up, shows the defect in a location
>> > >consistent with the entry shown in the AP x-rays.
>>
>> > You can believe this if you want, John. What you apparently cannot do i=
>s EXPLAIN
>> > THE EVIDENCE! Don't you just HATE that!?
>>
>> > >Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
>> > >shooter from behind, in the TSBD,
>>
>> > An entry ANYWHERE ON THE REAR of JFK would be perfectly consistent with=
> a
>> > shooter from behind, John. The problem *YOU* have is that the trajector=
>y simply
>> > doesn't work from where the entry was described at the autopsy.
>>
>> > It really doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out where a bullet=
> would
>> > exit ... originating high up, and entering near the EOP.
>>
>> > A fact that I'm sure you hate just as much as the 6.5mm virtually round=
> object
>> > in the AP X-ray.
>>
>> > >so why bother to mount an elaborate
>> > >plot to "move" it?
>>
>> > Sorry John... it's historical *FACT* that the entry was moved. So why n=
>ot
>> > explain why it moved, John?
>>
>> > >.John
>>
>> > Tell us John... can you cite any posts appearing in your censored forum=
> that you
>> > allow to be posted after *YOU* (or other "moderators") snip out materia=
>l you
>> > don't like?
>>
>> > --
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-
>> > Ben Holmes
>> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide qu=
>oted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>
j leyden
> "JGL" is well illustrating the purpose of my troll warning...
>
Gosh, I guess that means Ben is afraid of me, too, and I wouldn't
hurt a fly. BTW, Ben, I checked on Baldoni who is the first name on
your Enemies List of people who are out to get you and he hasn't
posted here in six months so I think you can safely remove his name.
Another BTW, you didn't answer my question about why you post about
the Clark panel and, ooops, forgot to mention its findings: JFK was
hit by two bullets from above and behind -- you know, in the general
area where Oswald was crouched in the TSBD sniper's nest. If you
don't start being a little more forthright, people are going to start
to lose confidence in you. But you did get another plug in for your
cheesy "Make Big Bucks" website. Boy, that business must really be on
the rocks if you have to beg for customers here. Maybe if you didn't
spend so much time posting on ACJ (800+ in Jan. & Feb.) things would
pick up. Best regards.
JGL
> In article <3600e2a2-172a-40f0-9e0d-de9d48012...@v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
<snipping Ben`s self-serving nonsense.>
> In article <4bac0f79.3229098...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
> >On 25 Mar 2010 18:11:45 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>In article <4baba574.3201958...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
As usual, a conspiracy kook is trying to portray one idea as
impossible, in order to advance an idea about a hundred times more
incredible.
> >>Are you *REALLY* going to try to argue that a virtually round, 6.5mm fragment
> >>seen in the X-rays is going to go unremarked on?
>
> >>One that's tremendously larger than any other fragment seen in the X-ray?
> >>(Remember how you evaded this point last time?)
>
> >>Just how stupid do you believe your audience is, John?
>
> >Not stupid enough to believe your arguments.
>
> That's okay John... I'll be happy to put this thread to a poll of the American
> people.
>
> But you already know what the results would be, don't you?
The answer you would likely get would be "What the fuck are you
talking about, I don`t know anything about any 6.5 virtually round
object in the AP x-ray."
> >>>The standard buff position on this is that the fragment was put there
> >>>to "move" the entry defect.
>
> >>You don't have to argue for or against that, John.
>
> >>You simply have to explain it.
>
> >No,
>
> You can keep running away from explaining the evidence in reasonable and
> non-conspiratorial terms John... but I'm just going to keep pointing this out.
You`ve offered no reasonable and conspiratorial explanation.
> >you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
> >wound.
>
> It's simple John... it was an impossible trajectory.
>
> By moving the entry up (and it's HISTORICAL FACT that this was done), the
> proposed trajectory began to look possible, even probable...
The entry was never moved, it was always where it occurred.
> Which was a great improvement over an *IMPOSSIBLE* trajectory.
>
> >If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
> >want to tamper with the x-rays.
>
> Keep running John... but you'll soon quit... because you simply CANNOT provide
> reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence in this case.
Nor can you show your conspiratorial ones. You`d need someone on the
inside to do that, you can`t really support these extraordinary ideas
from the outside, you can only play the silly games that you are.
> >>>But unfortunately, other things in the AP x-rays locate the entry
> >>>defect, most especially the fact that nasty fractures radiate out from
> >>>the location of the defect.
>
> >>You can believe that if you want to John. What you *can't* do is explain this
> >>6.5mm virtually round object.
>
> >You have no evidence
>
> John... I have a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
So do we. And you have no answer for it you can establish, same as
us.
> That's PHYSICAL EVIDENCE... something you keep denying that CT'ers have.
It`s not conspiracy evidence until you can establish it is the
result of a conspiracy, retard. That it is to your satisfaction is
meaningless.
> You have to explain it. Why can't you?
Let me take a crack at it. First, this from the deposition of Jerrol
Custer (the x-ray tech who took the x-rays of JFK) for the ARRB...
<quotes begin>
Q: Earlier you pointed to what I`m going to call a half-circle that
appears to be the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that
as a bullet fragment, is that right?
Jerrol Custer: Yes, sir.
Q: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that
question and ask another question. Do you know where that bullet
fragment was located in the body.
A: Right orbital, superior.
Q: How do you know it was the right orbital ridge, rather than the
back of the skull?
A: Because of the protruding eyeball.
Q: Did you see the fragment removed.
A: No, I did not. Can I interject something here?
Q: Sure.
A: This area, I pointed it out to Dr Ebersole as a fragment. And he
called it an artifact.
<quotes off>
Ebersole`s job was to interpret the x-rays. If Ebersole told the
doctors to ignore the object because it was an artifact, that could
explain why it doesn`t appear in their accounts.
> >except you dogged insistence that it *should*
> >have been mentioned in the autopsy report.
>
> Care to put it to a poll, John?
<snicker> What kind of stupid idea is Ben suggesting here, anyone
know? Who do you ask, how do you phrase the question?
This is just the common kook claim that they have the support of the
masses. They always have trouble actually producing this support,
though.
> >That's all.
>
> It's more than enough. Sorta like saying, "Yes John, the Sun will come up in the
> morning." ... realizing that while it may not be a perfectly scientific
> statement, it *is*, nevertheless, just as accurate and true as the fact that it
> would have been impossible for the doctors, and associated autopsy staff to miss
> a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
> Yet they did.
>
> And you can't explain it.
>
> >> I still recall your *last* attempt at explaining this one, John... you
> >> ran away then too.
>
> >No, you have to explain why anybody would want to "move" the entry
> >wound.
>
> Did so above. Would *YOU* like to revisit your last attempt at explaining this
> object?
>
> >If you don't want to argue that, you have to explain why anybody would
> >want to tamper with the x-rays.
>
> Repeating yourself, John. I've answered... and more importantly, I've given a
> perfectly reasonable and understandable reason.
No, actually it`s a stupid idea. It assumes that the conspiracy knew
the precise trajectories and knew what adjustments had to be made a
day after the assassination, and related this information to the folks
conducting the autopsy, and got them to comply with making changes.
And of course it even more complex and incredible than I put it
> IT'S HISTORICAL FACT that the entry was moved up approx. 4 inches...
>
> >>>I suppose Ben thinks that those were faked too.
>
> >>John... you have to EXPLAIN the evidence. Why aren't you doing so?
>
> >There is nothing to explain.
>
> Yes John, there is. Why wasn't the 6.5mm virtually round object seen during the
> autopsy?
You haven`t shown it wasn`t. Only that it`s existence wasn`t
recorded.
> >You just *posit* something that suits you, and demand an
> >"explanation."
>
> The evidence is there, John. I didn't invent it. It exists... *YOU* have to
> explain it. In reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms.
I did. Custer pointed it out to Ebersole. Ebserole declared it an
artifact, so the prosectors ignored it.
What is required to get them admitted into evidence maybe, not the
weight they carry once admitted into evidence.
> >Deal with it.
>
> >BUT WAIT, YOU EDITED ALL OF THAT OUT!
>
> >Can't deal with it, can you?
>
> John, it's time to label you a liar again. I edited *NOTHING* out of the post.
>
> >If you can't, people will conclude that you are just a typical buff,
> >with a few stereotyped talking points, but no understanding of
> >evidence.
>
> And yet, there it is... the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... and
> *STILL* no reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanation for how it was missed
> during the autopsy.
What good does it do to create a bad explanation if a good one
doesn`t exist?
Can we expect an apology for characterizing it as a "lie"? In what
meaningful way did you rule out he was mistaken?
John Fiorentino
Your assertions have no basis in fact. The Rydberg drawing, (meant to be
representative, not definitive) is probably the worst of the whole lot
anyway.
Your idea is simply untenable and grossly inaccurate. .John is perfectly
correct, that there was no "concern" about a near eop entry. The idea, that
an approx. 4in deviation in the entry negates a sixth floor shooter is based
on what exactly?
I'll answer my own question........Absolutely nothing.
And of course the deal buster is that this brilliant deduction MUST of
necessity had to have been made at autopsy, when frankly diddly-squat was
actually known about much of anything.
It's a fantasy, John.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hoh6...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
>Finally, an entry near the EOP would be perfectly consistent with a
>shooter from behind, in the TSBD, so why bother to mount an elaborate
>plot to "move" it?
Wrong, Dr. McAdams, just flat out wrong!
Here's Russell Morgan (who was the first to report the so-called 6.5 mm opacity)
addressing his colleagues in 1972 at a conference of forensic radiologists:
<quote on>
Had their assumption been correct, the bullet would have to have been fired from
below the level of the presidential limousine.
<quote off>
By "assumption" Morgan was referring to the autopsists' finding that the bullet
entered low near the EOP.
Credit Pat Speer for posting the transcript of the 8/18/72 article from the
Denver Post which included Morgan's comments.
Morgan's statement should help make it clear to you that there was significant
concern the low entry was ###NOT### consistent with a shot from the SN in the
book depository--this was certainly sufficient motive for moving the entry up by
adding the 6.5 mm pacity in the cowlick.
As I said before, however, Humes, tried to make his "straight-through-the-head"
trajectory consistent with a TSBD shot his own way--by lying about JFK's forward
lean in CE-388......having Rydberg draw that lean almost double (appx. 50
degrees) what it should have been. Then Humes had the nerve, insulting our
intelligence, to say they used Zapruder frame 312 to determine he proper lean
for that drawing....Dale Myers says JFK's forward lean in Z-frame 312 is 27.1
degrees.
And AGAIN, had Humes considered the possibility (actually the "liklihood",
considering how badly the nose of the bullet was deformed) the bullet deflected
up appx. 23 degrees as it penetrated JFK's lower skull, he wouldn't have had to
distort JFK's lean in CE-388 nor would anyone have had to add the 6.5 mm
opacity.
IMHO, because you teach a class on the assassination you ought to at least be
open to ths scenario.
John Canal
>.John
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
aeffects
> On Mar 26, 8:32 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > "JGL" is well illustrating the purpose of my troll warning...
>
> Gosh, I guess that means Ben is afraid of me, too, and I wouldn't
> hurt a fly. BTW, Ben, I checked on Baldoni who is the first name on
> your Enemies List of people who are out to get you and he hasn't
> posted here in six months so I think you can safely remove his name.
> Another BTW, you didn't answer my question about why you post about
> the Clark panel and, ooops, forgot to mention its findings: JFK was
> hit by two bullets from above and behind -- you know, in the general
> area where Oswald was crouched in the TSBD sniper's nest. If you
> don't start being a little more forthright, people are going to start
> to lose confidence in you. But you did get another plug in for your
> cheesy "Make Big Bucks" website. Boy, that business must really be on
> the rocks if you have to beg for customers here. Maybe if you didn't
> spend so much time posting on ACJ (800+ in Jan. & Feb.) things would
> pick up. Best regards.
ya need to focus jer, er GL er jleyden, er jlogan -- if you don't know
the evidence go back to hiding, jer, er GL er jleyden, er jlogan
(aside: without Tony Marsh aaj is down the tubes, Tony been carrying
old aaj for many moons now!)
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
John Canal
Yea, do they march in lock-step.....albeit in stubborn confusion.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John McAdams
wrote:
I think your argument is dependent on the notion that a bullet can't
deflect when it hits hard bone.
Admittedly, some people have done boneheaded (note pun) trajectory
analyses that assume you could just link the visible exit in the front
of the skull and the entry at the back and derive a trajectory that
points back to the Depository.
This *happens* to work, but it has no probative value.
And since you are accusing Humes of lying to make the trajectory work,
why didn't he just lie and go ahead and move the wound up?
The hard evidence -- photos and x-rays -- make it clear that the wound
was in the cowlick area.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
> <snipping Ben`s self-serving nonsense.>
>
>> In article <4bac0f79.3229098...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>
That's excellent work on your part.
I've tended to just blow this off, since the autopsists weren't
competent with *forensic* autopsies, and there would have been no
reason to mention the fragment anyway.
But OK, you have a comprehensible explanation.
>
>> >You just *posit* something that suits you, and demand an
>> >"explanation."
>>
>> The evidence is there, John. I didn't invent it. It exists... *YOU* have to
>> explain it. In reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms.
>
> I did. Custer pointed it out to Ebersole. Ebserole declared it an
>artifact, so the prosectors ignored it.
>
Ben Holmes
In article <4bad059c....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
A wacky suggestion that demonstrates your desperation.
>But OK, you have a comprehensible explanation.
No, it's silly on the face of it. The prosectors were desperately trying to find
any bullets, or even large fragments... even *if* Ebersole told them that this
was an artifact, they would have remembered it.
Silly speculation like this simply shows your desperation, Johm.
>>> >You just *posit* something that suits you, and demand an
>>> >"explanation."
>>>
>>> The evidence is there, John. I didn't invent it. It exists... *YOU* have to
>>> explain it. In reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms.
>>
>> I did. Custer pointed it out to Ebersole. Ebserole declared it an
>>artifact, so the prosectors ignored it.
Ah! So *quickly* does speculation become "fact" in kookworld...
>.John
Bud
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:27:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
<snicker> Ben claims to know what the prosectors would remember over
a decade after the fact. Now thats silly.
If they were specifically told to ignore the object, why is this
something they must remember? I tend to quickly jettison information
that is irrelevant.
Is this really all Ben can muster against the idea?
> Silly speculation like this simply shows your desperation, Johm.
>
> >>> >You just *posit* something that suits you, and demand an
> >>> >"explanation."
>
> >>> The evidence is there, John. I didn't invent it. It exists... *YOU* have to
> >>> explain it. In reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms.
>
> >> I did. Custer pointed it out to Ebersole. Ebserole declared it an
> >>artifact, so the prosectors ignored it.
>
> Ah! So *quickly* does speculation become "fact" in kookworld...
Who called it a "fact"? You called for a reasonable, non-
conspiratorial explanation, and I provided one.
Now Ben must call the witness a liar.
aeffects
Dudster, you're irrelevant -- you can't play, sorry!
John McAdams
wrote:
>>
He reminds me of Aguilar.
A witness is a fearless truth teller at one moment (when his testimony
is convenient) and lying scum the next.
Bud
> On Mar 26, 2:13 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> Dudster, you're irrelevant -- you can't play, sorry!
<snicker> I spiked your boy, stoner. This is why your hero killfiled
me, no other reason. Now you`ll see the real intellectual coward come
out in him. Last time I brought up this Custer dialog, he sputtered
that it was a different fragment being discussed. Right Ben, it`s a
different lightest colored half-circle fragment in the right orbital
superior being discussed.
John Canal
>
>Your assertions have no basis in fact. The Rydberg drawing, (meant to be
>representative, not definitive) is probably the worst of the whole lot
>anyway.
I already replied to this but, assuming it will be rejected, though, I'll
say this about that--Humes said they used Z-312 to determine the lean for
CE-388....pleeeese tell me you aren't so naive that you believe it was
just by chance the lean in that drawing was exagerated just enough (double
what it should have been) to make Humes' ill-advised
"straight-through-the-head" trajectory line up with the SN? Tell me it
ain't so.
Ironically, Baden's Dox drawing distorts his lean the other way...not
nearly enough.
Amazing how you buy this B/S.
The cowlick entry theory has fallen apart like a cheap watch.
The replications began the process.
Dale Myers' analysis of Baden's trajectory furthered the process.
The verification by Chad and Larry that Dr. Joe Davis was correct when he
said a trail of opacities can be seen on the lateral extending from near
the EOP furthered the process even more.
The reports by the ARRB experts, who had no horse in any race, that said
### NO ### entry wound could be seen on the X-rays, all but completely
crumbled the cowlick entry myth....and you wonder how Baden was able to
get up the nerve to testify that all the FPP members, and all the
consulting radiologists, were conclusively in agreement that an entry at
the higher location could be seen on the x-rays. Incredible...literally!
The fact that NO cowlick entry theorist has ever posted a graphic
superimposing a skull onto JFK's skull in F8 trying to show that the
semicircular beveled defect in F8 was near the EOP on the skull that was
superimposed, speaks volumes.
If that's not enough add to that demolition process the fact that there is
an FPP member who is ready to say that Humes was correct about the entry
should he be summoned to give a deposition on the subject. Of course you
don't believe me, but I could care less.
And Dr. McAdams' impromptu statement that "my entry" in F8 (which he
insists is not the real entry) "is deep inside the cranial cavity" was a
nice finishing touch towards the final debunking of your cowlick entry
myth. Oh, BTW, when I posted (for .john's edification) a quote by Chad
saying "my entry" was "the" correct entry, he said--drumroll please--(and
honestly this was tough to read), "Chad must have changed his mind".
Sigh....someone tell .john there's only one semicircular beveled defect
that can be seen in F8 in the inside of his BOH skull. Heck, call it "my
entry", if the good Doctor cares to...I actually like the sound of that.
I just hope we're both still around when the next examination of the
X-rays and photos in the NA, performed by credible experts, adds even more
nails to the coffin cover in which your deceased cowlick entry myth lies.
But keep up the rhetoric, though, if it makes you feel any
better...although it's a bit sad to see otherwise intelligent men try to
defend a lie.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Are you saying Morgan, who said any bullet that entered the low site would
have had to have been fired from below the level of the limo, was
boneheaded? He obviously based that "analysis" on Humes' proposed
"straight-through-the-head" (low entry, high exit) bullet path.
>This *happens* to work, but it has no probative value.
>
>And since you are accusing Humes of lying to make the trajectory work,
>why didn't he just lie and go ahead and move the wound up?
Because he knew photographs were taken of the entry in the skull that show
where t was...near the EOP.
>The hard evidence -- photos and x-rays -- make it clear that the wound
>was in the cowlick area.
They make it clear all right, and I'm talking about the best evidence, F8,
that the entry in the skull was near the EOP.
.john, respectfully, why don't you at least say you're "open" to the
autopsists being right on that. If your students have read my posts on
this subject I'll bet they are.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Bud
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
All the CTers use the same tactics because they are all forced to,
these are the only avenues available to them. If what they suggest
actually occurred, they`d have much more tangible material to work
with (like some of the thousands of participants in this conspiracy
who would have come forward by now), but as it is they are stuck with
these "this must mean this" constructs.
> A witness is a fearless truth teller at one moment (when his testimony
> is convenient) and lying scum the next.
It`s all a game to the kooks.
John Canal
Bull. You guys look for any kind of reassurance from one another you can
get.
Try reading Humes' WC testimony for a refreshing change...Specter and
Humes awkwardly discuss a large "bullet fragment" behind the right eye.
NOTE THAT ### NO ### FORENSIC RADIOLOGIST HAS EVER SAID THERE WAS A LARGE
BULLET FRAGMENT BEHIND THE RIGHT EYE!
Humes thought the 6.5 mm opacity, which your vaunted Clark Panel,
Rockefeller Commission, and HSCA experts said was in the cowlick, was
behind the right eye.
So, why did Humes think that? That was a rhetorical question...and the
answer is that there is ### NO ### opacity on the lateral films
corresponding with the 6.5 mm opacty on the AP......which, if it [the 6.5
mm opacity] actually was a bullet fragment [and it's not], would have made
it impossible to tell depth-wise where it [the 6.5 mm opacity] was in the
head.
BTW, the HSCA said there was an pacity on the lateral that corresponded
with the 6.5 mm opacity on the AP...the only thing is that the lateral
opacity shrunk and is bone-density. Of course the HSCA didn't provide any
denitometer readings to prove either the 6.5 mm opacity on the AP or the
cowlick opacity represented metal.
Anyway, the opacity in the cowlick on the lateral is a bone fragment
associated with the nearby deressed fracture. Humes proably saw that and
passed on it as evidence the 6.5 mm opacity was in the cowlick......he
must have thought he saw an opacity behind the right eye. Wrong! Sad!
Again, that's why Humes guessed that it was behind the right eye...he
couldn't in his wildest dreams consider the possibility that thing was
added to the X-ray.
And, if Ebersole thought that was an artifact that accidently made its way
onto the AP film,.......do you actually think he was so stupid he couldn't
assess the odds as being practically astronomical against an artifact
accidently being the same diameter as the ammo LHO used, ending up the
same distance [one inch] right of midline as Humes' entry site, and
"conveniently" near a depressed fracture in the cowlick that could be
mistaken as a bullet wound?
Now, Humes and Specter knew if that was a bullet fragment, as they did at
that point, considering its size, it should have been at least seen, if
not recovered on 11-22-63. That's why Humes lied again (CYA again) saying
he thought they did recover it....but the two fragments they recovered
were medical miles from behind the right eye.
Gheesh, doesn't anybody here read? If so, connect the dots...there are so
many of them they make a straight line.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net