Chuckles Calls David Von Pein A Liar.

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein says that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head. That's an answer to my question.

I've repeated stated that David **HAS** answered my question. But
neither Puddy nor Chuckles will answer, or agree publicly with David.


NO-ONE WILL PUBLICLY AGREE THAT DAVID'S ANSWER IS RIGHT!


Chuckles knows that David answered my question of whether or not there
was a large wound on the back of JFK's head.

But Chuckles ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly state he agrees with
David... despite being asked a number of times.

Clearly, Chuckles must think that David is wrong, or that David simply
lied when giving his answer. Those are the only possibilities.

David - are you going to allow your fellow believers to imply that
you're a liar?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.

My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
>
> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.

He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.

But nice try.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 6:51:55 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 4:35:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> David Von Pein says that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
>> head. That's an answer to my question.
>>

>> I've repeatedly stated that David **HAS** answered my question. But

>> neither Puddy nor Chuckles will answer, or agree publicly with David.
>>
>>
>> NO-ONE WILL PUBLICLY AGREE THAT DAVID'S ANSWER IS RIGHT!
>>
>>
>> Chuckles knows that David answered my question of whether or not there
>> was a large wound on the back of JFK's head.
>>
>> But Chuckles ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly state he agrees with
>> David... despite being asked a number of times.
>>
>> Clearly, Chuckles must think that David is wrong, or that David simply
>> lied when giving his answer. Those are the only possibilities.
>>
>> David - are you going to allow your fellow believers to imply that
>> you're a liar?
>
> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.

FINALLY!!! CHUCKLES ACTUALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION!!! CHUCKLES NOW HAS
CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD.

AFTER DAYS OF CLAIMING THAT HE ALREADY HAD - AND THAT THE ANSWER HAS
ALREADY BEEN GIVEN, CHUCKLES FINALLY GETS ENOUGH COURAGE TO DO WHAT
HE SHOULD HAVE DONE DAYS AGO!!!


Now that you've made a claim, do you intend to support it by citing
the evidence for your claim?

Are you going to explain what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the
back of the head?

Do you have the courage to tell everyone what the measurements of
the large head wound actually was?

Are you ready to show how such a wound can be put on JFK's head -
without being in the back of his head?

Are you ready to explain the DOZENS of medical witnesses who dispute
what you and David claim?

Are you ready to explain why you don't believe the Autopsy Report?





Or are you, as I FIRMLY predict - going to slink away like the coward
you are after making your unsupported claim?

Watch folks, as Chuckles slinks away, unwilling to support his claim.

(I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket... I've been predicting these
cowards for so long...)

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying Chuckles.

The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.

Better check with your doctor... that's the back of the head.

Indeed... there's **NO** part of the occipital that isn't in the back of the head.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>
> But nice try.

Sure he does. It differs because he can't explain it.

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

Whereas the WC didn't think enough of the anomaly to mention it. The historically accepted narrative is to not question the BOH wound. And DVP is confused.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>>
>> But nice try.
>
>Sure he does. It differs because he can't explain it.

Actually, it differs BECAUSE HE'S STATING SOMETHING THAT THE WARREN
COMMISSION NEVER STATED. (And provided evidence contradicting...)

Chuckles is now on record as making a claim that didn't come from the
Warren Commission.

And he's not man enough to support or defend his claim.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> >>
> >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> >
> >
> > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> >
> > But nice try.
>
>
> You're lying Chuckles.
>
> The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>

Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into the
**temporal** and occipital regions."

What part of the temporal bone is in the BOH? Why is beb more concerned about one "somewhat", but utterly ignores the other? Why does beb ignore the rest of the AR language that makes it clear that the *entry* would was in the BOH and the exit in a direction going *forward* of that? From the Summary comments:

"The fatal missile **entered** the skull above and to the right of the
external **occipital** protuberance. A portion of the projectile **traversed** the cranial cavity in a **posterior-anterior** direction (see lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two
wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior
saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."

> Better check with your doctor... that's the back of the head.
>

beb ought to check his brain. It's not functioning properly.

> Indeed... there's **NO** part of the occipital that isn't in the back of the head.

Stupid continues to ignore the radiating nature of the large *irregular* defect that includes language like "somewhat" into a region indisputably towards the front (frontal) as well as the into the occipital region which lay behind it. Other comments in the AR and in subsequent descriptions by the autosists make it clear that JFK's skull was fractured much like a soft boiled egg with some of the shell (skull) missing in an irregular direction around the area of exit.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> > >>
> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> > >
> > >
> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> > >
> > > But nice try.
> >
> >
> > You're lying Chuckles.
> >
> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> >
>
> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
> the **temporal** and occipital regions."

The autopsy stated where the wound was and Ben keeps asking other people about it. This illustrates he is playing silly games.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> > >>
> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> > >
> > >
> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> > >
> > > But nice try.
> >
> >
> > You're lying Chuckles.
> >
> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> >
>
> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into the
> **temporal** and occipital regions."

LNers always leave out the "absence of bone and scalp" part, if you'll notice. This is, of course, exactly what Dr. McClelland and Every. Single. Witness. confirms as well.

Because LN mouth-breathers refuse to acknowledge ANY of the medical witnesses and what they saw, this will just continue in an endless circle.

And speaking of circle, you ought to familiarize yourself with Sherry Fiester's explanation of concentric skull fractures resulting from kinetic energy, and how the fractures are closer together at the point of impact, based upon fracture sequencing. Maybe if you did you would stop quoting the very passage that's is unwittingly burying you, over and over and over.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:07:06 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> > > >>
> > > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> > > >
> > > > But nice try.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying Chuckles.
> > >
> > > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> > >
> >
> > Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
> >
> > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> > involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into the
> > **temporal** and occipital regions."
>
> LNers always leave out the "absence of bone and scalp" part, if you'll notice.

Explain why the prosectors would report wounds that were inconsistent with their findings.

> This is, of course, exactly what Dr. McClelland and Every. Single. Witness. confirms as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f2TR19fDk&t=17s

> Because LN mouth-breathers refuse to acknowledge ANY of the medical witnesses and what they saw, this will just continue in an endless circle.

This is what I`ve been telling you guys all along, you can`t go anywhere with your ideas.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > LNers always leave out the "absence of bone and scalp" part, if you'll notice.
>
> Explain why the prosectors would report wounds that were inconsistent with their findings.

Don't need to....you just admitted they did. And that's what matters.

>
> > This is, of course, exactly what Dr. McClelland and Every. Single. Witness. confirms as well.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f2TR19fDk&t=17s

Thanks for that link. I've never seen the Zapruder film before. Doesn't address what every medical expert saw, though. And I mean **every** medical expert. Literally. All of them.

>
> > Because LN mouth-breathers refuse to acknowledge ANY of the medical witnesses and what they saw, this will just continue in an endless circle.
>
> This is what I`ve been telling you guys all along, you can`t go anywhere with your ideas.

Uh-huh. And...

>
> > And speaking of circle, you ought to familiarize yourself with Sherry Fiester's explanation of concentric skull fractures resulting from kinetic energy, and how the fractures are closer together at the point of impact, based upon fracture sequencing. Maybe if you did you would stop quoting the very passage that's is unwittingly burying you, over and over and over.

Ignored by the troll.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?

The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head, the autopsy says one shot to the head fired from above and behind.

Put it all together, let's hear what you've got. Be specific.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:31:41 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > LNers always leave out the "absence of bone and scalp" part, if you'll notice.
> >
> > Explain why the prosectors would report wounds that were inconsistent with their findings.
>
> Don't need to....

You can`t. The facts are in conflict with your silly ideas.

>you just admitted they did.

Your reading comprehension problems are showing again.

>And that's what matters.

None of your ideas matter.

> >
> > > This is, of course, exactly what Dr. McClelland and Every. Single. Witness. confirms as well.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f2TR19fDk&t=17s
>
> Thanks for that link. I've never seen the Zapruder film before. Doesn't address what every medical expert saw, though.

What did you see? Compare what you can see to this...

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right

involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions."

If that isn`t the wound being described in the autopsy report where is that wound that is seen in the z-film recorded?

> And I mean **every** medical expert. Literally. All of them.

Why are autopsies performed?

> > > Because LN mouth-breathers refuse to acknowledge ANY of the medical witnesses and what they saw, this will just continue in an endless circle.
> >
> > This is what I`ve been telling you guys all along, you can`t go anywhere with your ideas.
>
> Uh-huh. And...

You are in an endless circle.

> >
> > > And speaking of circle, you ought to familiarize yourself with Sherry Fiester's explanation of concentric skull fractures resulting from kinetic energy, and how the fractures are closer together at the point of impact, based upon fracture sequencing. Maybe if you did you would stop quoting the very passage that's is unwittingly burying you, over and over and over.
>
> Ignored by the troll.

I saw a video that showed that the cracks radiated from the rear. You aren`t worth my time for me to try to find it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
>
> So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
>
> The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,

Correct.

>
> the autopsy says

The same thing.

>
> one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
>
> Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.

Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based. You've focused so hard on the latter that you've rendered the former a non-existent problem.

>
> Go ahead.
>
> I'll wait.

Stick your thumb up your ass while you wait.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> >
> > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > the autopsy says
>
> The same thing.
>
> >
> > one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
> >
> > Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
>
> Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.

<snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.

Of course autopsies are charges with determining the facts about the wounds, applying their *expert* opinion to return findings.

>You've focused so hard on the latter that you've rendered the former a non-existent problem.
>
> >
> > Go ahead.
> >
> > I'll wait.
>
> Stick your thumb up your ass while you wait.

Do you find that helps?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:49:04 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> >
> > But nice try.
>
> Sure he does. It differs because he can't explain it.

Straw.

>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html
>
> Whereas the WC didn't think enough of the anomaly to mention it.

Their job wasn't to satisfy kooks in the year 2019.

>The historically accepted narrative is to not question the BOH wound.

Apples and oranges. Variation of a Fallacy of False Cause. There is no causal connection or need to agree with the historically accepted conclusion and not be able to question parts of the case. Also can be a Fallacy of Composition whereby you take a portion of what seems suspicious (Parkland witnesses) and apply it to the whole of the conclusions. (Oswald acted alone, no conspiracy to be found.)

>And DVP is confused.

Straw. He's wondered why so many at Parkland described the wound in the back of the head when the autopsy report and photos so clearly are in general agreement.

Now, we've had this discussion, what...a dozen times since you've posted here under your latest alias, and you STILL haven't put these discrepancies int oa framework that better explains the event.

When can we expect to hear what you have?

Put up or shut up.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:06:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> > >
> > > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > >
> > > the autopsy says
> >
> > The same thing.
> >
> > >
> > > one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
> > >
> > > Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
> >
> > Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.
>
> <snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.

When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact. When someone opines something, it becomes opinion. I wonder, if 25 different medical experts told you you had cancer, would you <snicker> at them like a retard and ignore the opinion of one check-up?

I for one hope you would.

>
> Of course autopsies are charges with determining the facts about the wounds, applying their *expert* opinion to return findings.

Of which they found a large wound at the back of the head.

You're shit at this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
>> > >>
>> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>> > >
>> > > But nice try.
>> >
>> >
>> > You're lying Chuckles.
>> >
>> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>> >
>>
>> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
>>
>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
>> the **temporal** and occipital regions."

Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.

Trolls often don't even read what they're responding to. Truth isn't
the goal.

> The autopsy stated where the wound was and Ben keeps asking other
> people about it. This illustrates he is playing silly games.

Puddy, of course, has been running for DAYS on this issue. Was there a
large wound on the back of JFK's head? Someone who was *NOT* playing
games would have simply answered.

Simple.

Chuckles took a few days, but finally found the courage to agree with
David.

Puddy **STILL** refuses to answer. The one "playing games" are the
trolls who lie, and the morons who can't answer a simple question
about the evidence.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:50:09 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> >
> > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > the autopsy says
>
> The same thing.

Liar.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:12:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:06:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> > > >
> > > > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > the autopsy says
> > >
> > > The same thing.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
> > > >
> > > > Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
> > >
> > > Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.
> >
> > <snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.
>
> When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:17:13 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:12:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:06:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the autopsy says
> > > >
> > > > The same thing.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
> > > >
> > > > Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.
> > >
> > > <snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.
> >
> > When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact.
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Put your shit website with its 1990s flash and clipped content away, Von Pissant.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Because I can do the same thing.

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

And I can do it better.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:44:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

You're lying again, Chuckles.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:17:13 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:12:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:06:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the autopsy says
> > > >
> > > > The same thing.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
> > > >
> > > > Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.
> > >
> > > <snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.
> >
> > When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact.
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
>
>

All we really should ever do is just provide these two links when the BOH subject comes up. After 20 years of listening to Ben whine at this site, the rest is repetitive. And Boris the Truther adds nothing new.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:09:42 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:49:04 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> > >
> > > But nice try.
> >
> > Sure he does. It differs because he can't explain it.
>
> Straw.

Hilarious. Now that DVP is provably here and lurking, he can publicly deny that he did in fact tell me he has no idea why so many people saw a BOH wound, and that he himself can't explain it.

> >
> > Whereas the WC didn't think enough of the anomaly to mention it.
>
> Their job wasn't to satisfy kooks in the year 2019.

No, their job was to satisfy the America public in the year 1964. Didn't you read the memo?

>
> >The historically accepted narrative is to not question the BOH wound.
>
> Apples and oranges. Variation of a Fallacy of False Cause. There is no causal connection or need to agree with the historically accepted conclusion and not be able to question parts of the case. Also can be a Fallacy of Composition whereby you take a portion of what seems suspicious (Parkland witnesses) and apply it to the whole of the conclusions. (Oswald acted alone, no conspiracy to be found.)
>
> >And DVP is confused.
>
> Straw. He's wondered why so many at Parkland described the wound in the back of the head when the autopsy report and photos so clearly are in general agreement.

Questioning the historically accepted narrative, in other words. And no answers to be had.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:49:04 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>> >
>> > But nice try.
>>
>> Sure he does. It differs because he can't explain it.
>
>Straw.

Chuckles will **NEVER** cite the Warren Commission where they stated
that the large wound was not in the back of the head.

*Gotta* go get that lottery ticket, I keep making accurate
predictions.

[David Von Pein]

You can't do it at all, Richard Head.

You can't even figure out the super-easy stuff. No Internet CTer can. You're all still struggling even with the Tippit case. And there's never been an easier case to figure out than that one.

But, keep pretending, Richard. You're good at that at least.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:19:51 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:17:13 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:12:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:06:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the autopsy says
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.
> > > >
> > > > When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact.
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
> >
> > Put your shit website with its 1990s flash and clipped content away, Von Pissant.
> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > Because I can do the same thing.
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > And I can do it better.
>
> You can't do it at all, Richard Head.

Very good, Von Trapped. Ignore 25 expert witnesses and in response lob a sugar-coated insult not fit for a five-year-old, you lowly mutt.

>
> You can't even figure out the super-easy stuff. No Internet CTer can. You're all still struggling even with the Tippit case. And there's never been an easier case to figure out than that one.

Is Tippit what is currently being discussed? I must have missed the seamless subject segue. Either that, or you're running from a blatantly obvious anomaly you CLEARLY have no explanation for, and have admitted having none.

>
> But, keep pretending, Richard. You're good at that at least.

This is why your book nets you pennies in annual royalties.

[BT George]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:13:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> >> > >
> >> > > But nice try.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You're lying Chuckles.
> >> >
> >> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
> >>
> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> >> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
> >> the **temporal** and occipital regions."
>
>
> Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>

See beb's dishonesty here folks? They really indicated *chiefly* Parietal and *somewhat* Frontal/Occipital.

> Trolls often don't even read what they're responding to. Truth isn't
> the goal.
>

Idiots often don't *comprehend* what they read.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> >> > >
> >> > > But nice try.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You're lying Chuckles.
> >> >
> >> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
> >>
> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> >> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
> >> the **temporal** and occipital regions."
>
>
> Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.

No, they didn`t say "Parietal Occipital".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f2TR19fDk&t=17s

> Trolls often don't even read what they're responding to. Truth isn't
> the goal.
>
>
> > The autopsy stated where the wound was and Ben keeps asking other
> > people about it. This illustrates he is playing silly games.
>
>
> Puddy, of course, has been running for DAYS on this issue.

When I showed where the wound was indicated you removed what I wrote. You are a coward playing silly games.

> Was there a
> large wound on the back of JFK's head? Someone who was *NOT* playing
> games would have simply answered.
>
> Simple.
>
> Chuckles took a few days, but finally found the courage to agree with
> David.
>
> Puddy **STILL** refuses to answer.

If you tell me what part of what BT George quoted from the autopsy you don`t understand I will try to help you out.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 6:01:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:13:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But nice try.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > You're lying Chuckles.
> > >> >
> > >> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
> > >>
> > >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> > >> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
> > >> the **temporal** and occipital regions."
> >
> >
> > Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> >
>
> See beb's dishonesty here folks? They really indicated *chiefly* Parietal and *somewhat* Frontal/Occipital.

It as much says Parietal Occipital as it does says Parietal Temporal or Temporal Occipital. He is cherry picking words and putting them together out of context. It is all silly games with these guys.

[BT George]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:15:43 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 6:01:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:13:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But nice try.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You're lying Chuckles.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
> > > >>
> > > >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> > > >> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
> > > >> the **temporal** and occipital regions."
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> > >
> >
> > See beb's dishonesty here folks? They really indicated *chiefly* Parietal and *somewhat* Frontal/Occipital.
>
> It as much says Parietal Occipital as it does says Parietal Temporal or Temporal Occipital. He is cherry picking words and putting them together out of context. It is all silly games with these guys.
>

Indeed. What's worse, beb doesn't mind being repeatedly humiliated for his lack of sense and honesty. What a bizarre little game beb has going here.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
> >
>
> See beb's dishonesty here folks? They really indicated *chiefly* Parietal and *somewhat* Frontal/Occipital.

Ya! Let beb show that the parietal area is visible *anywhere* in the BOH photo, lurkers. Let beb and "Boris" show that every witness was anything but mistaken. W-I-N-N-I-N-G!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

"Millions killed JFK and covered it up. Plus they killed RFK. And Karyn Kupcinet and Dorothy Kilgallen. Oh...and AmeriKa sucks."

---Boris the Truther

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> "Millions killed JFK and covered it up. Plus they killed RFK. And Karyn Kupcinet and Dorothy Kilgallen. Oh...and AmeriKa sucks."
>
> ---Boris the Truther

There's **literally** more evidence of me having said that than there is Oswald shot at Walker.

[David Von Pein]

I must've gotten a raise. Last year = Zip.

[David Von Pein]

So CE1 is a fake too, eh Richard?

~yawn~
~stretch~

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Your talking points are more dated than Betamax tapes.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287#relPageId=21

Least of all the entirely non-specific nature of its contents.

Stick to curating your YouTube channel. It's the only thing you're good at.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

C'mon, Richard. Have the courage of your convictions.

LBJ, the DPD, CIA, FBI, the Mob, etc. killed JFK and later killed RFK to profit from the Vietnam War and Big Oil, get revenge for the BoP fiasco, enable the Mob to obtain relief from Bobby's war against them, help Hoover extend his time as FBI director, all while murdering Dorothy Kilgallen and Karyn Kupcinet. Journalists and politicians and doctors have been covering it up for over 50 years, and you--Richard the Truther--are uniquely able to divine the "hidden history" behind AmeriKKKa's perplexing events.

Thousands of industrious worker bees obeying evil henchmen for perpetuity.

And "they" would've got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids.

You're a kook, Richard.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Aw...poor Richard the Truther.


Didums widdle Wichard getums feelwings hurt again????

[Mark Ulrik]

Boris = Dick Head? No wonder he turned out the way he did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 2:24:30 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:17:13 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:12:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:06:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:50:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what does it all mean, Detective Boris?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Parkland witnesses say the "big" wound was in the back of JFK's head,
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the autopsy says
>>>>>
>>>>> The same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> one shot to the head fired from above and behind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put it all together, let's hear what you've got.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. The large BOH defect was factual. The "one shot from behind" diagnosis was opinion-based.
>>>>
>>>> <snicker> When someone says something you like, it becomes fact. When someone says something you don`t like, it becomes opinion.
>>>
>>> When 25 different doctors all witness the same identical thing, it's fact.
>>

>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com....
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com....

>>
> All we really should ever do is just provide these two links
> when the BOH subject comes up. After 20 years of listening to
> Ben whine at this site, the rest is repetitive. And Boris the
> Truther adds nothing new.

Those websites don't answer any of the questions I raise. Nor
does anything found on those sites supported by David, or anyone
else in open forum.

So every time you post a STUPID link like that, I'll simply
respond with Douglas Horne's five-volume set.

And unlike the nonsense spewed by David, I **WILL** support
my citations.

As I've done with my Mark Lane quotes.


All believers have finally figured out that they can't snooker
anyone anymore... so they've simply stopped responding.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:14:39 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:01:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 6:45:01 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Millions killed JFK and covered it up. Plus they killed RFK. And Karyn Kupcinet and Dorothy Kilgallen. Oh...and AmeriKa sucks."
> > > >
> > > > ---Boris the Truther
> > >
> > > There's **literally** more evidence of me having said that than there is Oswald shot at Walker.
> >
> > So CE1 is a fake too, eh Richard?
> >
> > ~yawn~
> > ~stretch~
>
> Your talking points are more dated than Betamax tapes.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287#relPageId=21
>

So you *do* think CE1 is a phony document. Got it.

(Gee, what a surprise that is.)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287#relPageId=21
> >
>
> So you *do* think CE1 is a phony document. Got it.
>
> (Gee, what a surprise that is.)

Funny how you think me linking to some OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS equates with me believing CE1 is fake. I wonder why your mind would go there? Hmm...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

That's the PROBLEM, Ben...NONE of the websites, investigations, interviews, articles, medical exams, forensics, etc. answer ANY of your questions, so WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS????

This is a game to you. It's called Fetch the Stick. You're recruiting players, and instead, we're asking you to better explain the event.

So start explaining.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Are you capable of arguing anything without f*cking it up? Can you argue anything without non-stop logical fallacies of some sort?

You really are a Richard, Richard.

[David Von Pein]

Brilliant move, Ben. It's akin to being the person who came up with "New Coke" and bragging incessantly about it.

Here's a humorous reminder of how insane Douglas "New Coke" Horne's theories can be....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CRURNCAGtHs/WA2TQ37sGdI/AAAAAAABKv4/me5QOBcT-DwnulegNz_lnPYRabFbNCNAgCLcB/s4000/Doug-Horne-Amazon-Post-12-19-2009.png

And that's the guy Ben Holmes is proud to march beside.

Get me a New Coke, Ben. I'm thirsty after all that laughing.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> Brilliant move, Ben. It's akin to being the person who came up with "New Coke" and bragging incessantly about it.
>
> Here's a humorous reminder of how insane Douglas "New Coke" Horne's theories can be....
>
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CRURNCAGtHs/WA2TQ37sGdI/AAAAAAABKv4/me5QOBcT-DwnulegNz_lnPYRabFbNCNAgCLcB/s4000/Doug-Horne-Amazon-Post-12-19-2009.png
>
> And that's the guy Ben Holmes is proud to march beside.

I see a well-written post by someone far more researched than you that 13 of 15 people felt added to the discussion.

And I see you Poisoning the Well. Or trying to.

>
> Get me a New Coke, Ben. I'm thirsty after all that laughing.

What are you going to buy that Coke with, David? The royalties from your book?

[David Von Pein]

Well, since I'm talking to a silly ABO Internet conspiracy fantasist, where else could my mind possibly go? You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty. And that will never do.

You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.

[David Von Pein]

As I said, Holmes is going to fetch me one. It's on him.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:31:49 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:17:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173
> > > >
> > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236
> > > >
> > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287#relPageId=21
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you *do* think CE1 is a phony document. Got it.
> > >
> > > (Gee, what a surprise that is.)
> >
> > Funny how you think me linking to some OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS equates with me believing CE1 is fake. I wonder why your mind would go there? Hmm...
>
> Well, since I'm talking to a silly ABO Internet conspiracy fantasist, where else could my mind possibly go?

Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.

>
> You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.

He is guilty.

>
> You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.

Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Brilliant move, Ben. It's akin to being the person who came up with "New Coke" and bragging incessantly about it.
> >
> > Here's a humorous reminder of how insane Douglas "New Coke" Horne's theories can be....
> >
> > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CRURNCAGtHs/WA2TQ37sGdI/AAAAAAABKv4/me5QOBcT-DwnulegNz_lnPYRabFbNCNAgCLcB/s4000/Doug-Horne-Amazon-Post-12-19-2009.png
> >
> > And that's the guy Ben Holmes is proud to march beside.
>

> I see a well-written post...

We're back to my "New Coke" comparison again, I see. (Thanks for making my point----again.)

What's next....CTers boasting about being a member of the 1962 Mets?

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:31:49 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:17:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287#relPageId=21
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you *do* think CE1 is a phony document. Got it.
> > > >
> > > > (Gee, what a surprise that is.)
> > >
> > > Funny how you think me linking to some OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS equates with me believing CE1 is fake. I wonder why your mind would go there? Hmm...
> >
> > Well, since I'm talking to a silly ABO Internet conspiracy fantasist, where else could my mind possibly go?
>
> Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
>

What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?

What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?

Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Either-Or Fallacy. One of Richard's favorites.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
> >
>
> What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
>
> What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
>
> Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?

Every villain needs a backstory. If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's. It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought. Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo, regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.

Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald to the shooting? At all?

A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour and a half?

> >
> > >
> > > You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.
> >
> > He is guilty.
> >
> > >
> > > You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.
> >
> > Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.

Say it, David.

Marina never lied. Ever.

You know you want to. So say it.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:56:20 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
> > >
> >
> > What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
> >
> > What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
> >
> > Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
>
> Every villain needs a backstory. If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's. It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought. Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo, regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.
>
> Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald to the shooting? At all?
>
> A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour and a half?
>

Maybe it had a little something to do with the fact that he had to leave the Kennedy murder weapon behind in the Depository building, and the fact that he also killed a police officer in full view of various witnesses just 45 minutes after he shot the President.

Ya think?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:04:18 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:56:20 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
> > >
> > > What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
> > >
> > > Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
> >
> > Every villain needs a backstory. If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's. It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought. Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo, regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.
> >
> > Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald to the shooting? At all?
> >
> > A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour and a half?
> >
>
> Maybe it had a little something to do with the fact that he had to leave the Kennedy murder weapon behind in the Depository building, and the fact that he also killed a police officer in full view of various witnesses just 45 minutes after he shot the President.
>
> Ya think?

What I think is you completely ignored the points I raised. Every single one.

And you still can't publicly state that Marina didn't lie during the investigation. And you won't. Because you're a coward, but you're not stupid.

Well, you are. But not THAT stupid.

[David Von Pein]

You lied (of course) when you said a 30.06 bullet was found at the Walker house. It was actually a Carcano bullet (of course).

But you (of course) think CE573 was a "plant" too. ~sigh~

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 2:25:06 PM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:09:42 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:49:04 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>>>>
>>>> But nice try.
>>>
>>> Sure he does. It differs because he can't explain it.
>>
>> Straw.
>
> Hilarious. Now that DVP is provably here and lurking, he can publicly
> deny that he did in fact tell me he has no idea why so many people
> saw a BOH wound, and that he himself can't explain it.


This is, of course, the problem. He's willing to label DOZENS of medical
professionals liars, or delusional, or whatever else he wants to call
it, on the basis of a photo & x-ray that appeared years later, with no
chain of custody AND NO WAY TO PROVE THEM AUTHENTIC.

There's a good reason that the U.S. legal system regards eyewitnesses
as better evidence than photos.


>>> Whereas the WC didn't think enough of the anomaly to mention it.
>>
>> Their job wasn't to satisfy kooks in the year 2019.
>
> No, their job was to satisfy the America public in the year 1964. Didn't you read the memo?
>
>>
>>>The historically accepted narrative is to not question the BOH wound.
>>
>> Apples and oranges. Variation of a Fallacy of False Cause. There is no causal
>> connection or need to agree with the historically accepted conclusion and not
>> be able to question parts of the case. Also can be a Fallacy of Composition
>> whereby you take a portion of what seems suspicious (Parkland witnesses) and
>> apply it to the whole of the conclusions. (Oswald acted alone, no conspiracy
>> to be found.)


Anyone notice how frantic Chuckles got when it was pointed out that he's making
an argument that the Warren Commission never made?

And indeed, is CONTRADICTING what the Warren Commission discovered?



>>>And DVP is confused.
>>
>> Straw. He's wondered why so many at Parkland described the wound in the back
>> of the head when the autopsy report and photos so clearly are in general
>> agreement.


That is, of course... a lie.


> Questioning the historically accepted narrative, in other words. And no answers to be had.

[Ben Holmes]

That isn't the correct question to ask.

The correct question to ask is why are you afraid to ANSWER the
questions?

The correct question to ask is why do you imply that the answers
have EVER been given, on a website or anywhere else?

> This is a game to you. It's called Fetch the Stick. You're
> recruiting players, and instead, we're asking you to better
> explain the event.
>
> So start explaining.

Been there, done that. You've simply run away.

>> So every time you post a STUPID link like that, I'll simply
>> respond with Douglas Horne's five-volume set.
>>
>> And unlike the nonsense spewed by David, I **WILL** support
>> my citations.
>>
>> As I've done with my Mark Lane quotes.
>>
>> All believers have finally figured out that they can't snooker
>> anyone anymore... so they've simply stopped responding.

Chuckles done just got spanked...

[Ben Holmes]

You object to others doing what you're doing.


Got it.

>> And unlike the nonsense spewed by David, I **WILL** support
>> my citations.

David had nothing to say to this.

[Ben Holmes]

Let's hear you tell a lie, David. Tell us the **FIRST** published
identification of that bullet.

Tell us of **ANY** published identification of that bullet that
**PREDATES** 11/22/63.

I'm sure you *KNOW* of a citation for the identification of that
bullet - let's hear you lie about it...


Your refusal to answer will be your admission that you know you've
just been caught telling a whopper.

> But you (of course) think CE573 was a "plant" too. ~sigh~
>

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com...

[David Von Pein]

WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

General Walker was sweating his balls off. He was scared to death that Oswald was going to reveal that he and Walker and De Morhenschildt [sic] had conspired and plotted a hoax that would have been beneficial to Walker in his quest for publicity, and beneficial to Oswald by making him appear to be a radical communist revolutionary who had tried to kill one of Castro's most vocal foes. Walker wanted to nail Oswald's coffin shut just as soon as possible.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~chuckle~

Can it get any goofier than this, folks? I ask you.

And, yes, it's obvious that the reporter just guessed when he asked Curry about any potential tie-in between the events of 11/22 and the Walker shooting in April. To believe that it was anything but a guess and speculation on the reporter's part would be to engage in the kind of absurdly over-the-top speculation that Walt has engaged in above concerning a wholly unsupportable theory that has Edwin Walker knowing Lee Oswald and participating in some silly charade in April '63 which had Oswald only PRETENDING to want to kill Walker.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1228.html

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:56:20 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
> > >
> >
> > What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
> >
> > What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
> >
> > Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
>
> Every villain needs a backstory.

Yet you won't provide one.

If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's.

Begging the Question.

>It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought.

Only if you ignore the evidence Oswald took a shot at Walker.

>Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo, regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.

Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang. Boris pivots to the Katzenbach memo and mangles what it was meant to convey. Again.

>
> Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald to the shooting? At all?

Any evidence you'd accept? OF course not. You're a kook.

>
> A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour and a half?

A better response by you would be to explain all of these lies, anomalies, hidden facts, etc. in a way better than the historically accepted WCR explained them.

But you'll never do it.

>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.
> > >
> > > He is guilty.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.
> > >
> > > Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.

Fallacy of Absolutism. Hasty Generalization.

Go home Boris. You're overmatched.

[Ben Holmes]

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com...


Looks like David Von Liar has admitted that he lied.

I asked a simple question... I wanted to know what the caliber of the
bullet that was shot at Walker was given as.

I wanted *ANY DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER* on the caliber that predates
11/22/63.

But David simply ran from that question.

He's proven himself both a liar and a coward.

He refuses to publicly acknowledge it, but the caliber was **ONLY** given
as a 30.06 until **AFTER** Oswald was killed... then in mysteriously
changed to 6.5mm.

So when David called someone a liar for the simple statement that the
bullet originally found was a 30.06 - David called that a lie.


BUT THE OBVIOUS LIAR IS DAVID VON LIAR!!

You owe an apology and a retraction, David. You're getting scummier and
scummier as the years go by.

Retract your lie, apologize for it, and PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT THE BULLET WAS
IDENTIFIED AS A 30.06 UNTIL **AFTER** OSWALD WAS DEAD.

Or prove yet again your cowardice and dishonesty...

P.S. Walt isn't around, why don't you man up and post something about me?

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 6:25:20 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:56:20 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
>>>
>>> What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
>>>
>>> Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
>>
>> Every villain needs a backstory.
>
>
> Yet you won't provide one.

Critics *HAVE* posted scenarios... you refuse to do so. Why the cowardice
Chuckles?

> If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used
> 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's.
>
> Begging the Question.

NO STUPID, THAT IS NOT "BEGGING THE QUESTION." It was posed hypothetically
and demonstrates that had anyone wanted to frame Oswald, THEY WOULD FRAME
HIM WITH A 6.5mm ROUND.

As indeed they did.

You, just as David, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post any documentation on
the caliber of the Walker bullet that predates 11/22/63.

And that fact tells the tale.

>>It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought.
>
> Only if you ignore the evidence Oswald took a shot at Walker.

What evidence?

You'll refuse to cite **ANY** evidence... because you know you'd
only get spanked.

>> Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo,
>> regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.
>
> Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang. Boris pivots to the Katzenbach memo and mangles
> what it was meant to convey. Again.

It's pretty clear. You've done *NOTHING* to change the plain meaning of
the Katzenbach memo.

>> Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald
>> to the shooting? At all?
>
> Any evidence you'd accept? OF course not. You're a kook.

Any evidence you'd have courage enough to cite? Of course not. You're
a COWARDLY kook.

>> A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime
>> scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour
>> and a half?
>
> A better response by you would be to explain all of these lies, anomalies,
> hidden facts, etc. in a way better than the historically accepted WCR
> explained them.
>
> But you'll never do it.

Already done. And the PROOF of that fact is that you refuse to respond
to it.

This shows that *YOU* know I met the burden you can't meet.

>>>>> You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.
>>>>
>>>> He is guilty.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.
>>>>
>>>> Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.
>
>
> Fallacy of Absolutism. Hasty Generalization.

IOW's, Chuckles is well aware of the FACT that Marina lied time and time
again. And that both the WC and the HSCA positively asserted that.

The only reason they relied on her lies is that without 'em, there was
no case.

Chuckles is afraid to publicly admit that he knows Marina lied over and
over again, because he *relies* on her lies to support his faith.

> Go home Boris. You're overmatched.

Go home, Chuckles. You're overmatched and a coward to boot.

>> Say it, David.
>>
>> Marina never lied. Ever.
>>
>> You know you want to. So say it.

I know a former FBI agent who actually said that.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:44:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:52:31 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
> >
> > General Walker was sweating his balls off. He was scared to death that Oswald was going to reveal that he and Walker and De Morhenschildt [sic] had conspired and plotted a hoax that would have been beneficial to Walker in his quest for publicity, and beneficial to Oswald by making him appear to be a radical communist revolutionary who had tried to kill one of Castro's most vocal foes. Walker wanted to nail Oswald's coffin shut just as soon as possible.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > ~chuckle~
> >
> > Can it get any goofier than this, folks? I ask you.
> >
> > And, yes, it's obvious that the reporter just guessed when he asked Curry about any potential tie-in between the events of 11/22 and the Walker shooting in April. To believe that it was anything but a guess and speculation on the reporter's part would be to engage in the kind of absurdly over-the-top speculation that Walt has engaged in above concerning a wholly unsupportable theory that has Edwin Walker knowing Lee Oswald and participating in some silly charade in April '63 which had Oswald only PRETENDING to want to kill Walker.
> >
> > More....
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com...
>
>
> Looks like David Von Liar has admitted that he lied.

Which is itself a lie. But you like lying and ascribe to others that which comes so easily to you.

>
> I asked a simple question... I wanted to know what the caliber of the
> bullet that was shot at Walker was given as.

Yes Ben, we know there's an early report of the description of the bullet that differs from the rifle Oswald owned. But then again, you don't think Oswald owned the Carcano. Or any rifle. And we know no explanation will satisfy you, so let's not try. The world is historically convinced Oswald took a shot at Walker. No everyone can be convinced of the obvious. Just ask Boris about 911.

>
> I wanted *ANY DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER* on the caliber that predates
> 11/22/63.
>
> But David simply ran from that question.
>
> He's proven himself both a liar and a coward.
>
> He refuses to publicly acknowledge it, but the caliber was **ONLY** given
> as a 30.06 until **AFTER** Oswald was killed... then in mysteriously
> changed to 6.5mm.
>
> So when David called someone a liar for the simple statement that the
> bullet originally found was a 30.06 - David called that a lie.
>
>
> BUT THE OBVIOUS LIAR IS DAVID VON LIAR!!
>
> You owe an apology and a retraction, David. You're getting scummier and
> scummier as the years go by.
>
> Retract your lie, apologize for it, and PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT THE BULLET WAS
> IDENTIFIED AS A 30.06 UNTIL **AFTER** OSWALD WAS DEAD.
>
> Or prove yet again your cowardice and dishonesty...
>
> P.S. Walt isn't around, why don't you man up and post something about me?

You'll be gone soon enough, and soon the whole rotten "Everyone Killed JFK" cult will dry up, too.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 17:45:16 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:31:49 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:17:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62287#relPageId=21
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you *do* think CE1 is a phony document. Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Gee, what a surprise that is.)
>>>>
>>>> Funny how you think me linking to some OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS equates with me believing CE1 is fake. I wonder why your mind would go there? Hmm...
>>>
>>> Well, since I'm talking to a silly ABO Internet conspiracy fantasist, where else could my mind possibly go?
>>
>> Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
>>
>
> What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt
> compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD
> murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?

When each individual case is so weak you'd never get a conviction, you
make up for it by piling on.

Are you so moronic that you couldn't think of that?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:57:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 6:25:20 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:56:20 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
> >>>
> >>> What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
> >>>
> >>> Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
> >>
> >> Every villain needs a backstory.
> >
> >
> > Yet you won't provide one.
>
> Critics *HAVE* posted scenarios... you refuse to do so. Why the cowardice
> Chuckles?

No critic has ever laid out an entire case and provided their explanations for what they allege. Ever.

If they had, you could post the book titles right here. No case in any book, from R2J to the more recent pieces of garbage that you guys treat like a Muslim treats the Koran.

>
>
> > If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used
> > 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's.
> >
> > Begging the Question.
>
>
> NO STUPID, THAT IS NOT "BEGGING THE QUESTION."

Er, yeah it is.

>It was posed hypothetically


Whats BEGGED is the premise Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He factually did.

> and demonstrates that had anyone wanted to frame Oswald, THEY WOULD FRAME
> HIM WITH A 6.5mm ROUND.

Why? Your Money Order conspirators supposedly deposited the funds for the rifle Oswald purchased in February. We just had a big discussion about it. I asked you why and you said maybe they were stupid.

You're mighty stupid, so why couldn't the Walker shooting framers be just as stupid as you?

Cite the reasons why if Oswald was going to be framed for shooting at Walker that they couldn't have messed up with the type of bullet. Couldn't the Walker shooting framers be just as stupid as the Money Order framers, who would be, in turn, just as stupid as you?

I doubt anyone could be as stupid as Boris, but maybe they could be as stupid as Boris.

>
> As indeed they did.
>
> You, just as David, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post any documentation on
> the caliber of the Walker bullet that predates 11/22/63.
>
> And that fact tells the tale.
>
>
>
> >>It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought.
> >
> > Only if you ignore the evidence Oswald took a shot at Walker.
>
>
> What evidence?

Fringe Reset.

>
> You'll refuse to cite **ANY** evidence... because you know you'd
> only get spanked.
>
>
> >> Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo,
> >> regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.
> >
> > Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang. Boris pivots to the Katzenbach memo and mangles
> > what it was meant to convey. Again.
>
>
> It's pretty clear. You've done *NOTHING* to change the plain meaning of
> the Katzenbach memo.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You and Boris the Truther, OTOH, have gone to great lengths to mangle the plain meaning of the K memo.

>
>
>
> >> Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald
> >> to the shooting? At all?
> >
> > Any evidence you'd accept? OF course not. You're a kook.
>
>
> Any evidence you'd have courage enough to cite? Of course not. You're
> a COWARDLY kook.

This is a fringe reset.

>
>
>
> >> A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime
> >> scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour
> >> and a half?
> >
> > A better response by you would be to explain all of these lies, anomalies,
> > hidden facts, etc. in a way better than the historically accepted WCR
> > explained them.
> >
> > But you'll never do it.
>
>
> Already done. And the PROOF of that fact is that you refuse to respond
> to it.

Never done. No kook has ever laid out a case that explains all of the evidence better than the WC. It's never happened in over half a century, and as this case recedes further away, I doubt a case will ever be laid out that explains the event better than the historically accepted case.

>
> This shows that *YOU* know I met the burden you can't meet.

The "burden" was met in 1964. Non-kooks producing solid work as opposed to your fantasies with KidNApPeD CoRPSes and LBJ as the mastermind-murderer with his evil henchmen ruthlessly carrying out orders to murder RFK, Karyn Kupcinet, Dorothy Kilgallen, etc.

>
>
>
> >>>>> You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.
> >>>>
> >>>> He is guilty.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.
> >>>>
> >>>> Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.
> >
> >
> > Fallacy of Absolutism. Hasty Generalization.
>
>
> IOW's, Chuckles is well aware of the FACT that Marina lied time and time
> again. And that both the WC and the HSCA positively asserted that.

Fallacy of Absolutism and Hasty Generalizations. Again. A witness can be wrong or mistaken and yes, even LIE, but be dead-on correct about something else. This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, and we don't need to dismiss all of what a witness says when they corroboration for some parts of what is said is so strong. Marina has never wavered from her testimony that Oswald took a shot at Walker, and this is looooong after you kooks could claim she feared deportation.

Sucks to be you.

>
> The only reason they relied on her lies is that without 'em, there was
> no case.

Really? She says there was a conspiracy now. But she's never faltered on the Walker incident. Perhaps it's because the note is legit. Perhaps it's because of the recon photos. Perhaps it's because Oswald told her he shot at Walker. Ignore what makes sense and insert you fantasy scenario.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 06:59:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:44:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:52:31 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
>>>
>>> General Walker was sweating his balls off. He was scared to death that Oswald was going to reveal that he and Walker and De Morhenschildt [sic] had conspired and plotted a hoax that would have been beneficial to Walker in his quest for publicity, and beneficial to Oswald by making him appear to be a radical communist revolutionary who had tried to kill one of Castro's most vocal foes. Walker wanted to nail Oswald's coffin shut just as soon as possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> ~chuckle~
>>>
>>> Can it get any goofier than this, folks? I ask you.
>>>
>>> And, yes, it's obvious that the reporter just guessed when he asked Curry about any potential tie-in between the events of 11/22 and the Walker shooting in April. To believe that it was anything but a guess and speculation on the reporter's part would be to engage in the kind of absurdly over-the-top speculation that Walt has engaged in above concerning a wholly unsupportable theory that has Edwin Walker knowing Lee Oswald and participating in some silly charade in April '63 which had Oswald only PRETENDING to want to kill Walker.
>>>
>>> More....
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com...
>>
>>
>> Looks like David Von Liar has admitted that he lied.
>
> Which is itself a lie. But you like lying and ascribe to others that
> which comes so easily to you.

When his lie has been pointed out, and he refuses to acknowledge it or
retract it, then yes, he has indeed admitted by his silence that he
got caught lying.

I shouldn't have to explain this to an honest man... but clearly,
you're not.

>> I asked a simple question... I wanted to know what the caliber of the
>> bullet that was shot at Walker was given as.
>
> Yes Ben, we know there's an early report of the description of the
> bullet that differs from the rifle Oswald owned.

So you believe it's okay to label someone a liar for referring to that
description of the caliber... THE ONLY DESCRIPTION THAT PREDATES
11/22/63.

Quite dishonest of you, isn't it?

> But then again, you don't think Oswald owned the Carcano. Or any rifle.

Feel free to cite the evidence.

And while you're at it, show us the caliber of the Walker bullet ...
document what it was... make sure it's *BEFORE* 11/22/63.

> And we know no explanation will satisfy you, so let's not try.

Of course not. I'm not interested in "explanations" or speculations...
I'm only interested in the EVIDENCE.

> The world is historically convinced Oswald took a shot at Walker.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

>> I wanted *ANY DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER* on the caliber that predates
>> 11/22/63.
>>
>> But David simply ran from that question.
>>
>> He's proven himself both a liar and a coward.
>>
>> He refuses to publicly acknowledge it, but the caliber was **ONLY** given
>> as a 30.06 until **AFTER** Oswald was killed... then in mysteriously
>> changed to 6.5mm.
>>
>> So when David called someone a liar for the simple statement that the
>> bullet originally found was a 30.06 - David called that a lie.
>>
>>
>> BUT THE OBVIOUS LIAR IS DAVID VON LIAR!!
>>
>> You owe an apology and a retraction, David. You're getting scummier and
>> scummier as the years go by.
>>
>> Retract your lie, apologize for it, and PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT THE BULLET WAS
>> IDENTIFIED AS A 30.06 UNTIL **AFTER** OSWALD WAS DEAD.
>>
>> Or prove yet again your cowardice and dishonesty...
>>
>> P.S. Walt isn't around, why don't you man up and post something about me?
>
> You'll be gone soon enough, and soon the whole rotten "Everyone
> Killed JFK" cult will dry up, too.

Reminds me of the moron (a believer) who posted this:

"California, which produces 25% of American produce, will be
uninhabitable in one year. Two years at the most. The rest of the US
will have to resettle 39 million people."

That was posted over four years ago.

Believers are never arround when their predictions fail to
materialize... I predict things all the time, and am here to laugh at
you when they come true.

For example, you'll never answer the question of what part of the
occipital is not seen in the BOH photo.

Thus far, I've been spot on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:57:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 6:25:20 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:56:20 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
>> >>>
>> >>> What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
>> >>>
>> >>> Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
>> >>
>> >> Every villain needs a backstory.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yet you won't provide one.
>>
>> Critics *HAVE* posted scenarios... you refuse to do so. Why the cowardice
>> Chuckles?
>
> No critic has ever laid out an entire case and provided their
> explanations for what they allege. Ever.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

> If they had, you could post the book titles right here. No case in
> any book, from R2J to the more recent pieces of garbage that you guys
> treat like a Muslim treats the Koran.

Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Get busy refuting it.

I'll be happy to defend it against *ANYTHING* you post.


You lose.

>> > If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used
>> > 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's.
>> >
>> > Begging the Question.
>>
>>
>> NO STUPID, THAT IS NOT "BEGGING THE QUESTION."
>
>Er, yeah it is.

You don't know what "if" means, do you?

>>It was posed hypothetically
>
>
> Whats BEGGED is the premise Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He
> factually did.

You're factually a liar. No-one was *EVER* convicted in a court of law
for that crime.

And the *ACTUAL* evidence doesn't support your theory.

This explains why you've ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to cite any evidence for
your wacky theories.

>> and demonstrates that had anyone wanted to frame Oswald, THEY WOULD FRAME
>> HIM WITH A 6.5mm ROUND.
>
> Why?

Because no-one would believe that Oswald used a rifle that he not only
did not own, but that there was ZERO EVIDENCE he'd owned, or had any
way to "borrow."


I shouldn't have to explain the obvious... but you're clearly a moron.

> Your Money Order conspirators supposedly deposited the funds for the
> rifle Oswald purchased in February. We just had a big discussion about
> it. I asked you why and you said maybe they were stupid.

Actually, you ran from most of that thread.

And offered no refutation.

> You're mighty stupid, so why couldn't the Walker shooting framers be
> just as stupid as you?

It doesn't bother you that you keep getting spanked with the evidence
from someone you claim is "mighty stupid?"

What would that make you?

> Cite the reasons why if Oswald was going to be framed for shooting
> at Walker that they couldn't have messed up with the type of bullet.

Because the first time the bullet changed from 30.06 to 6.5mm, they
had the "Oswald" rifle in hand, and had test fired many bullets
through it.

Spanked again!

> Couldn't the Walker shooting framers be just as stupid as the Money
> Order framers, who would be, in turn, just as stupid as you?

I think I'll just leave that one unanswered, and let lurkers enjoy the
laugh.

>> As indeed they did.
>>
>> You, just as David, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post any documentation on
>> the caliber of the Walker bullet that predates 11/22/63.
>>
>> And that fact tells the tale.

Chuckles got spanked again.

>> >>It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought.
>> >
>> > Only if you ignore the evidence Oswald took a shot at Walker.
>>
>> What evidence?
>
>Fringe Reset.

Cite a post where you **EVER** provided that evidence.

You won't.

>> You'll refuse to cite **ANY** evidence... because you know you'd
>> only get spanked.
>>
>>
>> >> Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo,
>> >> regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.
>> >
>> > Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang. Boris pivots to the Katzenbach memo and mangles
>> > what it was meant to convey. Again.
>>
>> It's pretty clear. You've done *NOTHING* to change the plain meaning of
>> the Katzenbach memo.
>
>Thank you. I appreciate that.

First time I've been thanked for pointing out someone's lie.

>> >> Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald
>> >> to the shooting? At all?
>> >
>> > Any evidence you'd accept? OF course not. You're a kook.
>>
>>
>> Any evidence you'd have courage enough to cite? Of course not. You're
>> a COWARDLY kook.
>
>This is a fringe reset.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

>> >> A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime
>> >> scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour
>> >> and a half?
>> >
>> > A better response by you would be to explain all of these lies, anomalies,
>> > hidden facts, etc. in a way better than the historically accepted WCR
>> > explained them.
>> >
>> > But you'll never do it.
>>
>> Already done. And the PROOF of that fact is that you refuse to respond
>> to it.
>
> Never done.

You're provably lying again, Chuckles.

>> This shows that *YOU* know I met the burden you can't meet.
>
> The "burden" was met in 1964.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

Who was the defense attorney?

>> >>>>> You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> He is guilty.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Fallacy of Absolutism. Hasty Generalization.
>>
>>
>> IOW's, Chuckles is well aware of the FACT that Marina lied time and time
>> again. And that both the WC and the HSCA positively asserted that.
>

> Fallacy of ...


Chuckles is TERRIFIED of admitting that he knows Marina lied time and
time again, and that *EVERYONE* knew it.

>> The only reason they relied on her lies is that without 'em, there was
>> no case.
>
> Really?

You just proved it.

>> Chuckles is afraid to publicly admit that he knows Marina lied over and
>> over again, because he *relies* on her lies to support his faith.
>>
>> > Go home Boris. You're overmatched.
>>
>>
>> Go home, Chuckles. You're overmatched and a coward to boot.
>>
>>
>> >> Say it, David.
>> >>
>> >> Marina never lied. Ever.
>> >>
>> >> You know you want to. So say it.
>>
>> I know a former FBI agent who actually said that.

“Marina Oswald was the straightest shooter God created. Never once did
we find a contradiction in her statements,” - Former FBI agent Dick
Rogge, interview with Colleen Cason - published in local paper in 2017

[Ben Holmes]

Top post: David ran again. What a HUGE coward!

[BT George]

"Boris" (Richard Head, I suppose) likes to pretend he doesn't believe everything was faked. Yet almost all his arguments lead inexorably to that very conclusion.

...BTW, Have you noticed how Richard and beb Holmes have come to sound eerily alike over here?

[Bud]

Which is why they refuse to spell out their ideas. It would be one absurdity on top of another until the whole thing collapses under the weight of their ridiculous and childish ideas.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:07:06 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.

>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>> > > >
>> > > > But nice try.
>> > >
>> > >

>> > > You're lying Chuckles.
>> > >
>> > > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
>> >
>> > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>> > involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into the
>> > **temporal** and occipital regions."
>>
>> LNers always leave out the "absence of bone and scalp" part, if you'll notice.
>
> Explain why the prosectors would report wounds that were inconsistent with their findings.


You're imagining things again, Puddy.


>> This is, of course, exactly what Dr. McClelland and Every. Single. Witness. confirms as well.
>>
>> Because LN mouth-breathers refuse to acknowledge ANY of the medical witnesses and what they saw, this will just continue in an endless circle.
>
> This is what I`ve been telling you guys all along, you can`t go anywhere with your ideas.

Just did.


>> And speaking of circle, you ought to familiarize yourself with Sherry Fiester's explanation of concentric skull fractures resulting from kinetic energy, and how the fractures are closer together at the point of impact, based upon fracture sequencing. Maybe if you did you would stop quoting the very passage that's is unwittingly burying you, over and over and over.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 6:01:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:13:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>> On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But nice try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying Chuckles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>>>>> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
>>>>> the **temporal** and occipital regions."
>>>
>>>

>>> Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>>>
>>
>> See beb's dishonesty here folks? They really indicated *chiefly* Parietal and *somewhat* Frontal/Occipital.
>
> It as much says Parietal Occipital as it does says Parietal
> Temporal or Temporal Occipital. He is cherry picking words and putting
> them together out of context. It is all silly games with these guys.


You're lying again, Puddy. Parietal Occipital, on the right side, is
as accurate or MORE accurate than any believer has posted.

That you're willing to lie shows that you know you lost.

You **STILL** refuse to publicly state that you agree with David.

Chuckles already has... why the cowardice Puddy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Which is why they refuse to spell out their ideas. It would be one
> absurdity on top of another until the whole thing collapses under the
> weight of their ridiculous and childish idea

Rather amusingly, this *DOES* apply to you - who've never posted a
scenario - and not at all to me, who's done so repeatedly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:02:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 9:11:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> I publicly agree that DVP's "take" on the BOH wound is correct.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> My guess? You didn't harass him for his scenario.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > He doesn't have one separate from the accepted one.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But nice try.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You're lying Chuckles.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Autopsy Report puts the wound in the Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Just a flat out lie Lurkers. The AR said specifically (emphasis mine):
>> >>
>> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>> >> involving **chiefly the parietal** bone but extending **somewhat** into
>> >> the **temporal** and occipital regions."
>>
>>
>> Yep. Parietal Occipital, on the right side.
>

> No, they didn`t say "Parietal Occipital".


You're lying again, Puddles.



>> Trolls often don't even read what they're responding to. Truth isn't
>> the goal.
>>
>>
>> > The autopsy stated where the wound was and Ben keeps asking other
>> > people about it. This illustrates he is playing silly games.
>>
>>
>> Puddy, of course, has been running for DAYS on this issue.
>
> When I showed where the wound was indicated you removed what I
> wrote. You are a coward playing silly games.


You've refused to state the answer... you've refused to state whether
or not you accept what David & Chuckles have claimed.

You're simply a coward.

It takes less words to simply answer the question than your evasions
you posted above.




>> Was there a
>> large wound on the back of JFK's head? Someone who was *NOT* playing
>> games would have simply answered.
>>
>> Simple.
>>
>> Chuckles took a few days, but finally found the courage to agree with
>> David.
>>
>> Puddy **STILL** refuses to answer.
>
> If you tell me what part of what BT George...


Sorry. Rarely pay attention to trolls...


The answer would be "Yes" or "No."

You either agree with David, or you don't.


Run coward... RUN!!!



>> The one "playing games" are the
>> trolls who lie, and the morons who can't answer a simple question
>> about the evidence.
>>
>>
>> >> What part of the temporal bone is in the BOH? Why is beb more concerned about one "somewhat", but utterly ignores the other? Why does beb ignore the rest of the AR language that makes it clear that the *entry* would was in the BOH and the exit in a direction going *forward* of that? From the Summary comments:
>> >>
>> >> "The fatal missile **entered** the skull above and to the right of the
>> >> external **occipital** protuberance. A portion of the projectile **traversed** the cranial cavity in a **posterior-anterior** direction (see lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two
>> >> wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
>> >> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior
>> >> saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>> >>
>> >> > Better check with your doctor... that's the back of the head.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> beb ought to check his brain. It's not functioning properly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Indeed... there's **NO** part of the occipital that isn't in the back of the head.
>> >>
>> >> Stupid continues to ignore the radiating nature of the large *irregular* defect that includes language like "somewhat" into a region indisputably towards the front (frontal) as well as the into the occipital region which lay behind it. Other comments in the AR and in subsequent descriptions by the autosists make it clear that JFK's skull was fractured much like a soft boiled egg with some of the shell (skull) missing in an irregular direction around the area of exit.