Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Provable Lies of the Warren Commission (#14)

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 10:16:39 AM8/16/06
to
"Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result of a
shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.

Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed that the
throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound, but they made no
examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)

The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat wound
could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first day
statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all asserted
the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or *entry* wound. It's
well known today that the Secret Service sent two agents to Parkland, who
succeeded in changing minds about the direction of the neck wound by telling
Parkland that the autopsy showed this. (3H 363-364)

Interestingly, although there were known to have been interviews conducted with
Parkland staff, a total of 24 Secret Service and 6 FBI interviews - yet not a
single one of these reports were included in the 26 volumes - according to
Sylvia Meagher.

The Warren Commission simply lied.

Bud

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 3:44:54 PM8/16/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> "Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result of a
> shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.
>
> Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed that the
> throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound, but they made no
> examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)
>
> The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat wound
> could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first day
> statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all asserted
> the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or *entry* wound.

How did they determine a bullet caused this wound?

> It's
> well known today that the Secret Service sent two agents to Parkland, who
> succeeded in changing minds about the direction of the neck wound by telling
> Parkland that the autopsy showed this. (3H 363-364)

Some people will change their opinions when more information comes
to light. Most likely drew the conclusion this was an entry because of
it`s clean appearance, not blown out like most bullet wounds they were
familiar with did. But CE399 was of a type of ammunition they wouldn`t
see very often, and many a CT has remarked on how good a condition it
remained after inflicting this damage, and that of Connally`s.

> Interestingly, although there were known to have been interviews conducted with
> Parkland staff, a total of 24 Secret Service and 6 FBI interviews - yet not a
> single one of these reports were included in the 26 volumes - according to
> Sylvia Meagher.

They weren`t the right people to ask when you had a autopsy
performed.

tomnln

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 4:50:14 PM8/16/06
to
BOTTOM POST;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155757494.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

==========================================================================


> They weren`t the right people to ask when you had a autopsy
> performed.

Bud;
The Parkland Dr's serviced an average of 1271 gunshot wounds per year.
Humes & Boswell Never performes an autopsy in their Lives.
==========================================================================

Bud

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 5:12:22 PM8/16/06
to

How often did they misdiagnose bullet exit wounds as entry wounds?

(1271 a year? Almost three and a half a day? No wonder so many
people in the vicitity of the Tippit murder scene heard the wrong
amount of shots, who could tell with all the other gunfire that must
have been going on.)

> Humes & Boswell Never performes an autopsy in their Lives.

Thats ok, it was a first time for Kennedy also.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 6:36:23 PM8/16/06
to
In article <YwLEg.4109$W01.2008@dukeread08>, tomnln says...

>
>BOTTOM POST;
>
>"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>news:1155757494.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> "Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result
>>> of a shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.
>>>
>>> Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed
>>> that the throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound,
>>> but they made no examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)
>>>
>>> The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat
>>> wound could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first
>>> day statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all
>>> asserted the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or
>>> *entry* wound.
>>
>> How did they determine a bullet caused this wound?


Perhaps because there wasn't a Bic pen sticking out of his neck?

Your question is stupid. No-one denies that it was a bullet hole.

The point being made is that the WCR simply lied about the Parkland staff
opinions of that first day. And strangely, Bud doesn't even address it.


>>> It's
>>> well known today that the Secret Service sent two agents to Parkland, who
>>> succeeded in changing minds about the direction of the neck wound by
>>> telling Parkland that the autopsy showed this. (3H 363-364)
>>
>> Some people will change their opinions when more information comes
>> to light.


This has *NOTHING* to do with what the Warren Commission asserted. They did
*NOT* state that anyone had *changed* their mind - they stated that their
*original* opinion was that it could have been either an entry or an exit. They
simply *LIED* about this - as there is *ZERO* evidence that they felt it might
have been an exit wound originally.

Nice to see Bud, that you must be dishonest in order to support the WCR.


>> Most likely drew the conclusion this was an entry because of
>> it`s clean appearance, not blown out like most bullet wounds they were
>> familiar with did.

Why is this so difficult for you Bud? THIS IS NOT WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION
REPORT STATED!

It's just that simple...


>> But CE399 was of a type of ammunition they wouldn`t
>> see very often, and many a CT has remarked on how good a condition it
>> remained after inflicting this damage, and that of Connally`s.


Many a CT'er has remarked on the condition to make the point that it COULDN'T
have done what the WCR insisted that it did ... despite, I might add, their own
medical and ballistic testimony.

But yet again, this doesn't address the points I made.


>>> Interestingly, although there were known to have been interviews
>>> conducted with Parkland staff, a total of 24 Secret Service and 6 FBI
>>> interviews - yet not a single one of these reports were included in the
>>> 26 volumes - according to Sylvia Meagher.
>==========================================================================
>> They weren`t the right people to ask when you had a autopsy
>> performed.


Non-response to the two points I made... #1, that the WCR simply lied about the
opinions of the medical staff at Parkland... and #2, that the interviews
conducted with the staff were never placed in the 26 volumes.


>Bud;
>The Parkland Dr's serviced an average of 1271 gunshot wounds per year.
>Humes & Boswell Never performes an autopsy in their Lives.

And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the assertion that the neck wound was an
exit is based on speculation, not medical examination.

Bud illustrated yet once again the total inability of LNT'ers to respond to the
facts.

The WCR lied, and Bud can't refute it.

tomnln

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 8:24:22 PM8/16/06
to
BOTTOM POST;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1155762742....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

THIS is the Exact Reason I refer to you as the Spokesperson for ALL Felon
Supporters.
Because you make them ALL look Stupid/Criminal.

Bud

unread,
Aug 16, 2006, 9:39:46 PM8/16/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <YwLEg.4109$W01.2008@dukeread08>, tomnln says...
> >
> >BOTTOM POST;
> >
> >"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> >news:1155757494.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> "Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result
> >>> of a shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.
> >>>
> >>> Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed
> >>> that the throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound,
> >>> but they made no examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)
> >>>
> >>> The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat
> >>> wound could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first
> >>> day statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all
> >>> asserted the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or
> >>> *entry* wound.
> >>
> >> How did they determine a bullet caused this wound?
>
>
> Perhaps because there wasn't a Bic pen sticking out of his neck?

<snicker> Is that how bullet wounds are determined, by the lack of
bic pens sticking out of them?

> Your question is stupid.

You`ve certainly shown you couldn`t answer it. Thats ok, not one CT
has answered it yet

> No-one denies that it was a bullet hole.

That has what to do with my question (which was "How did they
determine that a bullet caused this wound?"--> altered my quote by
adding "that" BTW.)

> The point being made is that the WCR simply lied about the Parkland staff
> opinions of that first day.

You make your points. I`ll make mine.

> And strangely, Bud doesn't even address it.

You didn`t address my question about how they determined the throat
wound was a bullet wound.

> >>> It's
> >>> well known today that the Secret Service sent two agents to Parkland, who
> >>> succeeded in changing minds about the direction of the neck wound by
> >>> telling Parkland that the autopsy showed this. (3H 363-364)
> >>
> >> Some people will change their opinions when more information comes
> >> to light.
>
>
> This has *NOTHING* to do with what the Warren Commission asserted.

Ben brings up the SS working to change opinions at Parkland, so I
spoke to that aspect of what he wrote, so he brings up an entirely
different aspect, and asks why I didn`t address that. Dumb ass.

> They did
> *NOT* state that anyone had *changed* their mind -

But *you* brought up the SS visiting Parkland. I didn`t, I only
commented on what *you* brought up. Had *you* not brought it up, I
likely would not have commented on it.

> they stated that their
> *original* opinion was that it could have been either an entry or an exit. They
> simply *LIED* about this - as there is *ZERO* evidence that they felt it might
> have been an exit wound originally.

Did you see me respond to that particular part of your post in any
way? I made some points that I wanted to make, and was willing to leave
it at that. Dumb ass.

> Nice to see Bud, that you must be dishonest in order to support the WCR.

How would you know, apparently you can`t even understand what
portions of your post I was responding to. Thats strange, since I put
them right under the parts I was responding to in the standard
newsgroup manner. I suspect the cause might have something to do with
the fact that you are a dumb ass.

> >> Most likely drew the conclusion this was an entry because of
> >> it`s clean appearance, not blown out like most bullet wounds they were
> >> familiar with did.
>
> Why is this so difficult for you Bud?

Why was my question to you so difficult?

> THIS IS NOT WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION
> REPORT STATED!
>
> It's just that simple...
>
>
> >> But CE399 was of a type of ammunition they wouldn`t
> >> see very often, and many a CT has remarked on how good a condition it
> >> remained after inflicting this damage, and that of Connally`s.
>
>
> Many a CT'er has remarked on the condition to make the point that it COULDN'T
> have done what the WCR insisted that it did ... despite, I might add, their own
> medical and ballistic testimony.
>
> But yet again, this doesn't address the points I made.

No, again that was me making the point I wanted to. Handgun bullets
often flatten out, causing massive and easily disernable exit wounds.
The vast bulk of the enterance wounds they would be familar with are
clean and round. But, in this particular case, because of the
ammunition used, the exit was clean and round. This fooled the doctors
who were used to certain things meaning certain things. If you had
doctors on an island who saw 3 shark bites a day that took off limbs,
then a patient brought in missing a limb might have the doctors jumping
to the conclusion that a shark had done it, even if it was really a
motorcycle accident that actually did the harm.

> >>> Interestingly, although there were known to have been interviews
> >>> conducted with Parkland staff, a total of 24 Secret Service and 6 FBI
> >>> interviews - yet not a single one of these reports were included in the
> >>> 26 volumes - according to Sylvia Meagher.
> >==========================================================================
> >> They weren`t the right people to ask when you had a autopsy
> >> performed.
>
>
> Non-response to the two points I made... #1, that the WCR simply lied about the
> opinions of the medical staff at Parkland... and #2, that the interviews
> conducted with the staff were never placed in the 26 volumes.

My response addressed number two. Emergency rooms are in a state of
flux, the observations of the people there are often fleeting and
incomplete, they aren`t charged with a scientific inquiry on the
wounds, they are charged with the treatment of them.. Such testimony
can only interject confusion, not clarity. Autopsies, by their nature
are more static, and are charged with a making such determinations as
wound causes and particulars.

> >Bud;
> >The Parkland Dr's serviced an average of 1271 gunshot wounds per year.
> >Humes & Boswell Never performes an autopsy in their Lives.
>
> And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the assertion that the neck wound was an
> exit is based on speculation, not medical examination.

There was no proper and thorough investigation to to determine the
particulars of the throat wound before the trach was done. Medical
personel saw the hole. The hole appeared as entrance wounds ordinarily
appear, so they considered it such. But, things aren`t always as the
appear. I was looking on the wound ballistic forensic site, and saw a
bullet exit that looked very much like a stab wound.

> Bud illustrated yet once again the total inability of LNT'ers to respond to the
> facts.

Other than to declare my question silly, I didn`t see you address my
question about how they determined the neck wound was caused by a
bullet.

> The WCR lied, and Bud can't refute it.

If the Parkland staff interviews weren`t included in the WCR, how do
you know what each and every one of their opinions were about the
throat wound?

Robert Harris

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 11:47:14 AM8/17/06
to
In article <ebv9c...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:

> "Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result of
> a
> shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.
>
> Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed that
> the
> throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound, but they made no
> examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)
>
> The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat wound
> could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first day
> statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all
> asserted
> the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or *entry* wound.

Well, I suspect that if a member of the commission were replying, he
would point out this statement from Perry's WC testimony,

"I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact
trajectory of the missile."

So, regardless of what he said originally, only Perry could tell the
world what he was thinking or believed. Therefore, technically speaking,
I don't think we can call this a "lie".


Robert Harris


> It's
> well known today that the Secret Service sent two agents to Parkland, who
> succeeded in changing minds about the direction of the neck wound by telling
> Parkland that the autopsy showed this. (3H 363-364)
>
> Interestingly, although there were known to have been interviews conducted
> with
> Parkland staff, a total of 24 Secret Service and 6 FBI interviews - yet not a
> single one of these reports were included in the 26 volumes - according to
> Sylvia Meagher.
>
> The Warren Commission simply lied.

--
There is no question an honest man will evade.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 11:58:14 AM8/17/06
to
In article <reharris1-03D61...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Robert Harris says...

>
>In article <ebv9c...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>> "Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result of
>> a shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.
>>
>> Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed that
>> the throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound, but they
>> made no examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)
>>
>> The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat wound
>> could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first day
>> statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all
>> asserted
>> the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or *entry* wound.
>
>Well, I suspect that if a member of the commission were replying, he
>would point out this statement from Perry's WC testimony,
>
>"I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact
>trajectory of the missile."


A statement that cannot possibly be used to determine what they *ORIGINALLY*
thought. Unless you believe "originally" to refer to months later.

Only documents written that day, and the press conference, could be so used.


>So, regardless of what he said originally,

This *IS* what the WCR is attempting to assert... what they believed ORGINALLY!

So there is no "regardless" involved... this *IS* what they meant by the phrase
"Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed..."

You can't argue that their "belief" at the time of their testimony was what they
*originally* believed, since their first day statements and WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
contradict it.

The Warren Commission lied. It's just that simple.


>only Perry could tell the
>world what he was thinking or believed. Therefore, technically speaking,
>I don't think we can call this a "lie".

I don't make the mistake of believing that what Parkland staff *testified* to
months later is identical with their written reports, and reported statements of
that first day.

The Warren Commission certainly knew that the Parkland Staff had to be "brought
around" to the idea that the neck wound might have been an exit... they must
have known that they were promulgating a lie...


>Robert Harris


Granted, you probably made the best case that can be made... even a LNT'er
couldn't have improved on it... but it falls short of the mark.

Robert Harris

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 3:27:34 PM8/17/06
to
In article <ec23m...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
wrote:

> In article <reharris1-03D61...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
> >
> >In article <ebv9c...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
> >
> >> "Speculation.--The throat wound sustained by the President was the result
> >> of
> >> a shot fired from the front according to doctors at Parkland Hospital.
> >>
> >> Commission finding.--Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed that
> >> the throat wound could have been either an entry or exit wound, but they
> >> made no examination to determine entry and exit." (WCR 641)
> >>
> >> The doctors at Parkland *DID NOT* "originally believe that the throat
> >> wound
> >> could have been either an entry or exit wound"... All of the first day
> >> statements and observations, both spoken and put down in writing - all
> >> asserted
> >> the same thing, that the neck wound was a *penetrating* or *entry* wound.
> >
> >Well, I suspect that if a member of the commission were replying, he
> >would point out this statement from Perry's WC testimony,
> >
> >"I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact
> >trajectory of the missile."
>
>
> A statement that cannot possibly be used to determine what they *ORIGINALLY*
> thought. Unless you believe "originally" to refer to months later.

Perry's claim was that he couldn't make a determination because he
didn't ascertain the trajectory. If true, then he was uncertain from the
time he examined JFK.

I think you could build a better case that Perry was lying than that the
commission was.

At the very least, the WC had the right to interpret Perry's testimony
to mean that he was uncertain at the time he examined JFK.

>
> Only documents written that day, and the press conference, could be so used.

Why?

Perry was the only person on the planet who knew what he really believed
at the time. If he said he was undecided, then right or wrong, the wc
had the right to accept it.

Robert Harris

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 4:10:21 PM8/17/06
to
In article <reharris1-E0194...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,


This can't be supported by his statements at the press conference, and his
written notes of that day. As I'm sure you know.

And the Warren Commission KNEW this. They cannot, (nor, I might note, can you)
provide *any evidence whatsoever* from that first day that might suggest that
anyone on the Parkland staff felt that the neck wound was ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN
ENTRY WOUND.

The Warren Commission lied... it's just that simple.


>I think you could build a better case that Perry was lying than that the
>commission was.


Certainly Perry changed his mind... but no, you can't make the case AT ALL that
the WCR was telling the truth... you can't find *ANYTHING* that would support
their assertion.


>At the very least, the WC had the right to interpret Perry's testimony
>to mean that he was uncertain at the time he examined JFK.


Certainly they had that right... but they knew quite well that such testimony,
months later, COULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR ASSERTION THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY
BELIEVED.

They had *nothing* to suggest what they asserted.


>> Only documents written that day, and the press conference, could be so used.
>
>Why?

Simple... it's what they were trying to claim.


>Perry was the only person on the planet who knew what he really believed
>at the time. If he said he was undecided, then right or wrong, the wc
>had the right to accept it.

Perry wasn't the only one. The WCR stated: "Commission finding.--Doctors at


Parkland Hospital originally believed that the throat wound could have been

either an entry or exit wound..."

But neither Perry, nor ANY OTHER PARKLAND DOCTOR - is on record as believing as
the WCR asserted.


Can you locate any citation or press reports from that first day that would
support the WCR's assertion?

Walt

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 5:17:09 PM8/17/06
to

That's correct.... What is really demonstrated here is; that the
Warren Commission lawyers were very good at turning white to black, or
black to white,.....or more to the point the could change front to back
to back to front, with a slight of the hand. And their manipulations
made it appear that Oswald could perform feats of magic......

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 5:17:46 PM8/17/06
to

That's correct.... What is really demonstrated here is; that the


Warren Commission lawyers were very good at turning white to black, or
black to white,.....or more to the point the could change front to back
to back to front, with a slight of the hand. And their manipulations
made it appear that Oswald could perform feats of magic......

Walt

>
>

Robert Harris

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 11:08:50 PM8/17/06
to
On 17 Aug 2006 14:17:09 -0700, "Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

Hey Walt!

I'm going to change the subject before Ben starts getting really
mad:-)

Do you remember a discussion we had several years ago, about the
possibility of a silenced SBT shot from the Daltex at 223?

You argued (quite reasonably) that such a thing was not possible
because to be totally silent, a shot would have to have been subsonic
or under 1100 fps, and therefore, could not have passed through both
JFK and Connally.

Since I have become increasingly convinced that a silenced shot did
indeed, go through both of them, I've been collecting some data on
this issue that might be significant.

Some fairly wicked weapons fire subsonic bullets, including a 38
special and most .45 caliber handguns, but there is one thing that we
didn't think about at the time we were bickering about this.

The ability of a bullet to penetrate is not based solely on velocity
and mass. It is also based on the shape of the bullet. A rapier will
pierce flesh with almost no pressure at all, but place a ball bearing
on the tip and Charles Atlas would have a hard time sticking it to
somebody.

Remember what Thompson discovered when he interviewed the hospital
personnel who handled the stretcher bullet?

They said it didn't match CE-399 and that the tip was much more
*pointed* than the MC bullet was. If that is correct, then doesn't it
make sense that such a bullet might have had far better penetration
properties than other bullets?

Also, wouldn't a much smaller tip and lower velocity make more sense
when we consider the very tiny dimensions of both JFK's back and neck
wounds??


Robert Harris

There is no question that an honest man will evade.

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

Walt

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 6:29:07 AM8/18/06
to

Robert Harris wrote:
> Hey Walt!
>
> I'm going to change the subject before Ben starts getting really
> mad:-)
>
> Do you remember a discussion we had several years ago, about the
> possibility of a silenced SBT shot from the Daltex at 223?
>
> You argued (quite reasonably) that such a thing was not possible
> because to be totally silent, a shot would have to have been subsonic
> or under 1100 fps, and therefore, could not have passed through both
> JFK and Connally.

Robert, You are confused ... I have posted information about the
probability that at least one silenced weapon was used in murdering
JFK, and I most certainly would NOT have argued against thet view.
You have me confused with some other poster. However, Now that you
have broached the subject, let me offer a little info about that idea.

First off....a projectile traveling at 1100 fps will not be subsonic at
the altitude for Dallas. I believe the bullet would have to be
traveling about 900fps to be below the sound barrier in Dallas.

>
> Since I have become increasingly convinced that a silenced shot did
> indeed, go through both of them, I've been collecting some data on
> this issue that might be significant.

I never argued this point with you before, but I don't believe a
subsonic bullet will have the ENERGY to go through both men. It true
one could fire a needle at a subsonic velocity and "maybe" with luck it
could pass through both men but it's obvious that a needle wouldn't do
much damage and it certainly wouldn't be lethal.


>
> Some fairly wicked weapons fire subsonic bullets, including a 38
> special and most .45 caliber handguns, but there is one thing that we
> didn't think about at the time we were bickering about this.

Both the 38 and the 45 caliber BULLETS ( NOT cartridge) can be fired at
subsonic velocities, and the will be deadly at close range....(up to 50
yards) But I don't believe that it's possible to fire the 38 special
CARTRIDGE silently. The velocity is simply to high, and the BULLET
would break the sound barrier causing a "sonic boom".


>
> The ability of a bullet to penetrate is not based solely on velocity
> and mass. It is also based on the shape of the bullet. A rapier will
> pierce flesh with almost no pressure at all, but place a ball bearing
> on the tip and Charles Atlas would have a hard time sticking it to
> somebody.

Absolutely correct...no argument

I think at the time I posted info about this subject, I believe I used
a golf ball and a bowling ball as examples of the hitting power and
penetrating power. A slow moving large ball like a bowling ball could
not penetrate a cardboard box, but it probably would do sever damage to
the box, Whereas a fast moving ball like a golf ball being driven from
a Tee would probably blast right through at least one side of the
cardboard box. ( a 1/2 inch ball bearing would penetrate both sides of
the box )


> Remember what Thompson discovered when he interviewed the hospital
> personnel who handled the stretcher bullet?
>
> They said it didn't match CE-399 and that the tip was much more
> *pointed* than the MC bullet was. If that is correct, then doesn't it
> make sense that such a bullet might have had far better penetration
> properties than other bullets?

Not exactly correct.....I believe Thompson said that he THOUGHT the
bullet he "found" was more pointed. When the Warren Commission
"investigators" ( cover-up artists) showed Thompson CE 399 he said
THOUGHT that remembered that the bullet was more ponted ( a spire
point) Thomsons memory may not have been totally reliable ( most
peoples aren't) six months after the fact.

I don't buy the idea that the bullet Thompson "found" was a spire
point.
The conspiritors weren't the world's smartest people ....BUT they knew
that if they were going to successfully frame the patsy, they would
have to use BULLETS (not cartridges) that could have been fired from
the rifle that he was photographed holding in CE 133A. They knew that
the Mannlicher Carcano fired a
long, ROUND nosed, 6.5mm BULLET. They weren't so stupid as to use
totally different ammo and think that they could frame the patsy.


>
> Also, wouldn't a much smaller tip and lower velocity make more sense
> when we consider the very tiny dimensions of both JFK's back and neck
> wounds??
>

Robert I suggest that you do a little research about Mannlicher Carcano
ammunition.
You should learn that the Italians made several various types of
BULLETS ( projectiles) that fit the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano CARTRIDGE.
Among the types the manufactured were a fragmenting bullet, and an
exploding bullet.....either type could have caused the damage that JFK
suffered to his skull.

I've just skimmed across the surface of this subject.....we can go into
in greater detail if you want, but at this point I don't believe your
idea has merit. I don't believe a silencer equipped weapon could fire
a projectile with enough ENERGY to PENETRATE two men an be lethal.

P.S. It's also possible that JFK's skull was blown apart by a big slow
moving hard hitting bullet like a .45.
The dent in the chrome molding of the Lincoln, looks EXACTLY as it
would appear if it had been struck by a subsonic .45 caliber bullet. So
I do believe a silenced .45 caliber weapon was fired from a low
elevation to the rear of JFK.

Walt

cdddraftsman

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 6:35:44 AM8/18/06
to
And passed thru secret service men standing up in a car directely
behind the car JFK was riding in ? Whew ! Now we do have a magic bullet
to talk about ! Good Show ! TL

Walt

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 7:07:32 AM8/18/06
to

cdddraftsman wrote:
> And passed thru secret service men standing up in a car directely
> behind the car JFK was riding in ? Whew ! Now we do have a magic bullet
> to talk about ! Good Show ! TL

Not that low of an elevation....Don't be stupid! The .45 cal bullet
from the rear passed over the heads of the SS in the Caddy, and struck
JFK in the head, just seconds after the small high velocity bullet
struck him in the thraot and exited his back.

Walt

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 10:07:41 AM8/18/06
to
In article <44e52b92...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...


Hehehe! I, like you, enjoy someone who tries to refute my statements. For when
you're on the right side of an issue, attempted refutation only makes it
stronger...

>Do you remember a discussion we had several years ago, about the
>possibility of a silenced SBT shot from the Daltex at 223?
>
>You argued (quite reasonably) that such a thing was not possible
>because to be totally silent, a shot would have to have been subsonic
>or under 1100 fps, and therefore, could not have passed through both
>JFK and Connally.
>
>Since I have become increasingly convinced that a silenced shot did
>indeed, go through both of them, I've been collecting some data on
>this issue that might be significant.
>
>Some fairly wicked weapons fire subsonic bullets, including a 38
>special and most .45 caliber handguns, but there is one thing that we
>didn't think about at the time we were bickering about this.
>
>The ability of a bullet to penetrate is not based solely on velocity
>and mass. It is also based on the shape of the bullet. A rapier will
>pierce flesh with almost no pressure at all, but place a ball bearing
>on the tip and Charles Atlas would have a hard time sticking it to
>somebody.
>
>Remember what Thompson discovered when he interviewed the hospital
>personnel who handled the stretcher bullet?
>
>They said it didn't match CE-399 and that the tip was much more
>*pointed* than the MC bullet was. If that is correct, then doesn't it
>make sense that such a bullet might have had far better penetration
>properties than other bullets?


Absolutely! But transit has always been a speculation not based on examination
of the body... IMO, no transit happened.

Walt

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 11:18:16 AM8/18/06
to


I'm not trying to refute your statements....However my opinion is as
good as yours in the point under discussion. Neither of us knows
positively whether a bullet did, or did not, transit the body of JFK,
I believe that we do agree that one bullet did transit John Connally,
from BACK to FRONT. However, I believe strongly that a projectile did
transit JFK's body from FRONT to BACK. There is a boat load of
evidence to support this contention. Most, if not all, of the Parkland
doctors who saw the throat wound believed that a tiny projectile had
made a PENETRATING or ENTRY wound just below and to the right of JFK's
adams apple. On the afternoon of the assassination, the doctors were
ordered to submit written reports about what the had witnessed in the
Trama room while JFK was being worked on. ( Who was behind the order to
find out which doctors would have to be "talked to"??) The Doctors hand
written notes are published in the Warren Report.

All of the Dr's believed that a tiny projectile had hit JFK in the
throat, and there is photographic evidence that also supports their
contention. A witness who was standing on the south curb of Elm street
snapped a photo just as Jackie and JFK were directly in front of his
position. The photo Croft took shows a tiny piece of JFK's white
shirt being blown out through the BACK of his dark suit jacket. The FBI
knew that Croft had taken photos during the shooting and wanted to see
them. Croft was traveling through Dallas and was changing trains at
the time. He had boarded a train immediately after the shooting and
continued on his way to Denver. The FBI hunted him down that night and
confiscated his film. They kept the photo of the bullet EXITING JFK's
back hidden for twenty years. Why would they supress evidence if it
didn't show anything important??? The Croft photo is proof that one
bullet did transit JFK's body.

Walt

>
>
>

Walt

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 11:19:22 AM8/18/06
to

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 11:41:54 AM8/18/06
to
In article <1155914296....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...

I was referring to Robert's attempt to support the WCR's assertion that the
Parkland staff *ORIGINALLY* believed the neck wound to be either an entry or an
exit.


>However my opinion is as
>good as yours in the point under discussion.

Absolutely. As long as you recognize that the presumption of transit *WAS*
based on mere speculation - you can speculate just as well as I can.

I can't argue that there was *NOT* a transit, I can only point out that there is
no medical evidence for it.


>Neither of us knows
>positively whether a bullet did, or did not, transit the body of JFK,
>I believe that we do agree that one bullet did transit John Connally,
>from BACK to FRONT. However, I believe strongly that a projectile did
>transit JFK's body from FRONT to BACK. There is a boat load of
>evidence to support this contention. Most, if not all, of the Parkland
>doctors who saw the throat wound believed that a tiny projectile had
>made a PENETRATING or ENTRY wound just below and to the right of JFK's
>adams apple. On the afternoon of the assassination, the doctors were
>ordered to submit written reports about what the had witnessed in the
>Trama room while JFK was being worked on. ( Who was behind the order to
>find out which doctors would have to be "talked to"??) The Doctors hand
>written notes are published in the Warren Report.


And *none* of them support the WCR lie.


>All of the Dr's believed that a tiny projectile had hit JFK in the
>throat, and there is photographic evidence that also supports their
>contention. A witness who was standing on the south curb of Elm street
>snapped a photo just as Jackie and JFK were directly in front of his
>position. The photo Croft took shows a tiny piece of JFK's white
>shirt being blown out through the BACK of his dark suit jacket. The FBI
>knew that Croft had taken photos during the shooting and wanted to see
>them. Croft was traveling through Dallas and was changing trains at
>the time. He had boarded a train immediately after the shooting and
>continued on his way to Denver. The FBI hunted him down that night and
>confiscated his film. They kept the photo of the bullet EXITING JFK's
>back hidden for twenty years. Why would they supress evidence if it
>didn't show anything important???

What's important may not be what *you* think is important.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 3:02:19 PM8/18/06
to
Before anybody can say outlandish, there is a supportive opinion in
Killing The Truth on pg. 42. In Spitz and Fisher's Medicolegal
Investigation of Death show that the horizontal ovoid hole in the back
4 x 7 mm. is in fact, an exit wound.. It is called a pitting edema.

> >
> >
> >

Walt

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 3:34:16 PM8/18/06
to

Thanks Curt..... I didn't know that, and I'm certainly no expert on
bullet wounds ( though I have seen many in game animals) I believe
that Dr Humes also unknowingly,( because of his ignorance about gun
shot wounds) confirmed that trhe back wound was an exit wound. Humes
said he probed the wound in JFK's back with his finger, and could only
insert his finger about 1/2 inch. This is exactly what one would
expect from a mushrooming bullet. The small caliber bullet (.22?) that
hit JFK in the throat, hit soft tissue, stayed pretty much intact and
in shape, until it hit the heavy muscle in JFK's back. After striking
the dense muscle it started to mushroom and expanded as it continued
it's travel through his back muscle. When it exited. just as Croft
snapped his photo, it was an irregular shape about 5/16" in diameter.
Which caused the back wound to be approximately the size of a 6.5mm
bullet.


Walt
> > >
> > >
> > >

Walt

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 3:35:37 PM8/18/06
to

Thanks Curt..... I didn't know that, and I'm certainly no expert on

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 11:02:59 PM8/18/06
to

Don't believe that nonsense. It is simply not true.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 18, 2006, 11:04:59 PM8/18/06
to

No.

>>>
>>>
>

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 7:37:25 AM8/19/06
to

> >> Before anybody can say outlandish, there is a supportive opinion in
> >> Killing The Truth on pg. 42. In Spitz and Fisher's Medicolegal
> >> Investigation of Death show that the horizontal ovoid hole in the back
> >> 4 x 7 mm. is in fact, an exit wound.. It is called a pitting edema.
> >
Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Don't believe that nonsense. It is simply not true.

Oh I believe it is true. I'm no expert on gun shot wounds but I do
have some experience with tracking a bullet through an animal carcass.
When a soft nosed bullet hit the flesh of the animal it starts to
mushroom or expand. The expansion of the bullet depends on the density
of the flesh. If the bullet strikes soft tissue ( like the belly for
example ) it does not expand as rapidly as it would in more dense hard
muscle. When the bullet strikes dense muscle the bullet expands, and
as it does, it tears a progressively larger cavity in the muscle,
leaving a "V" or conical tunnel in it's wake. If the bullet has enough
velocity and weight it can pass right through the muscle. If that exit
wound is probed, the "V" shape of the bullet's path will prevent a
person from inserting a finger very deep into the bullet hole. There
are many variables that have to be taken into consideration such as
bullet diameter, weight, and composition..... not to mention the age of
the animal and the density of the muscle.

Now having given that brief explanation..... I believe that JFK was hit
in the soft tissue of the throat by a high velocity small caliber
bullet. That bullet didn't strike anything to arrest it's flight
through JFK's body, or cause it to start to expand, until it hit the
dense back muscle. Then it started to mushroom and passed out of his
back, just as seen in the Croft photo. The "V" shaped tunnel left in
the muscle, prevented Dr.Humes from probing the path beyond an inch.


Walt

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 10:09:00 AM8/19/06
to
So, why don't you offer an alternative than just make a dogmatic
statement? There are other opinions besides the ones that just said
the throat wound was an entrance wound. There was one opinion at
Parkland that said the bullet was in the lung, and one who said it
traversed downward.

CJ

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 3:14:28 PM8/19/06
to

There was a lot of speculation that night, born of incompetence. I have
always said that the bullet hit the back, hit the tip of the vertebra
and exited the throat.

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 3:18:16 PM8/19/06
to
>>> "I have always said that the bullet hit the back, hit the tip of the vertebra and exited the throat." <<<

And then it went.....where exactly?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 3:32:32 PM8/19/06
to
Walt wrote:
>>>> Before anybody can say outlandish, there is a supportive opinion in
>>>> Killing The Truth on pg. 42. In Spitz and Fisher's Medicolegal
>>>> Investigation of Death show that the horizontal ovoid hole in the back
>>>> 4 x 7 mm. is in fact, an exit wound.. It is called a pitting edema.
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Don't believe that nonsense. It is simply not true.
>
> Oh I believe it is true. I'm no expert on gun shot wounds but I do
> have some experience with tracking a bullet through an animal carcass.
> When a soft nosed bullet hit the flesh of the animal it starts to
> mushroom or expand. The expansion of the bullet depends on the density
> of the flesh. If the bullet strikes soft tissue ( like the belly for
> example ) it does not expand as rapidly as it would in more dense hard
> muscle. When the bullet strikes dense muscle the bullet expands, and
> as it does, it tears a progressively larger cavity in the muscle,
> leaving a "V" or conical tunnel in it's wake. If the bullet has enough
> velocity and weight it can pass right through the muscle. If that exit
> wound is probed, the "V" shape of the bullet's path will prevent a
> person from inserting a finger very deep into the bullet hole. There
> are many variables that have to be taken into consideration such as
> bullet diameter, weight, and composition..... not to mention the age of
> the animal and the density of the muscle.
>

Nonsense. You know nothing about ballistics. There is no "V" wound
channel. Pure rubbish. The entrance wound and exit wound in THIS case,
as opposed to other anecdotal cases you can cite, were approximately the
same diameter. The width of the entrance wound in the back was
indicative of a 6.5 mm bullet. And why are you talking about soft nose
when the ammo used was full metal jacket?
Any entrance wound in a body caused by a 6.5 mm bullet can NOT be probed
with a finger. Even the pinkie is too big to fit into the hole. You can
test this yourself by punching out a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of paper and
trying to put your little finger into it. Won't go. Get a circle
template which has circles in millimeters. Try to poke your little
finger into the 7 mm hole. Won't go.

> Now having given that brief explanation..... I believe that JFK was hit
> in the soft tissue of the throat by a high velocity small caliber
> bullet. That bullet didn't strike anything to arrest it's flight
> through JFK's body, or cause it to start to expand, until it hit the
> dense back muscle. Then it started to mushroom and passed out of his
> back, just as seen in the Croft photo. The "V" shaped tunnel left in
> the muscle, prevented Dr.Humes from probing the path beyond an inch.
>

You seem to be ignoring the fractured vertebra.

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 3:37:49 PM8/19/06
to
>>> "Then it started to mushroom and passed out of his back, just as seen in the Croft photo." <<<

The Croft photo supposedly shows a bullet exiting JFK's back, eh??
That's news to me.

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 3:50:59 PM8/19/06
to

Oh really??.... Were you the G.K. Shooter? How do you know what kind
of ammo was used to make the TINY punctuate ENTRANCE hole in JFK's
throat?

> Any entrance wound in a body caused by a 6.5 mm bullet can NOT be probed
> with a finger. Even the pinkie is too big to fit into the hole. You can
> test this yourself by punching out a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of paper and
> trying to put your little finger into it. Won't go. Get a circle
> template which has circles in millimeters. Try to poke your little
> finger into the 7 mm hole. Won't go.
>
> > Now having given that brief explanation..... I believe that JFK was hit
> > in the soft tissue of the throat by a high velocity small caliber
> > bullet. That bullet didn't strike anything to arrest it's flight
> > through JFK's body, or cause it to start to expand, until it hit the
> > dense back muscle. Then it started to mushroom and passed out of his
> > back, just as seen in the Croft photo. The "V" shaped tunnel left in
> > the muscle, prevented Dr.Humes from probing the path beyond an inch.
> >
>
> You seem to be ignoring the fractured vertebra.

No problem.... The small caliber, high velocity projectile could easily
have NICKED the spinal column before striking the dense back muscle.

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:04:40 PM8/19/06
to


Thank you very much..... For corroborating what I said. I said that
the back wound was NOT an entry wound (made by a FMJ 6.5mm bullet) I
said it was an EXIT wound made by an expanded small caliber soft nosed
bullet. ( probably a .22 caliber ) The cartridge was possiably a .223
Fireball.?? I agree that Dr humes ( nor any adult male) could stick
his finger in the ENTRY wound made by a FMJ 6.5mm bullet.

Mucho gracias

Walt
>

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:14:54 PM8/19/06
to

I'm not surprised....You don't seem to know much beyond the contrived
tale of the Warren Commission.

Perhaps if you got yer head out of yer ass, and actually studied the
records, you too would see that the Warren Report is one big lie.

Walt

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:23:08 PM8/19/06
to
>>> "I said it {JFK's back wound} was an EXIT wound made by an expanded small caliber soft nosed bullet...." <<<

Which must mean that a person hiding on the floorboard of the limo
fired this shot -- which enters the neck and travels upward to exit the
back.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg

Where do you think the shooter was located who fired this bullet, Sir
Walter?

Plus -- Why didn't this bullet hit the SS car behind the President,
which was no more than a few feet behind JFK's limo? Given such a
neck-thru-back trajectory, it seems logical that the big SS car WOULD
have been hit (esp. if you think -- as you no doubt erroneously do --
that such a shot would be travelling slightly DOWNWARD, instead of
upward through JFK).

That bullet, given that scenario, would have struck the SS car or,
possibly the trunk of JFK's car...which, of course, is limo damage that
did not occur.

Let the nutty "Neck-Thru-Back" CT kookshit fly!

aeffects

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:49:50 PM8/19/06
to

They're trolling, Walt. Testing CT waters, seeing if they need to
prepare new disinfo. Been Von Pein's mo since the start...

> Walt

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:52:52 PM8/19/06
to
Walt,

You ACTUALLY believe that the Croft picture shows a bullet exiting
JFK's back???

Your current bar tab must have reached five figures if you actually are
postulating such nonsense.

For one thing, the Croft photo (linked below) equates to approx.
Z-Frame 161, which was well before we know JFK was hit by any
bullets....because Kennedy is still smiling and waving for another 20+
Z-Frames.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8991.jpg

The above Croft image gives a very good look at JFK approx. 3 to 4
seconds before the SBT shot. And it can generally be seen (via the
Croft picture) that a bullet entering JFK's upper back, here.....

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/jfk05.jpg

.....is consistent with the SBT, with the bullet exiting near the
center of this mess of a throat wound below (the exact point of exit is
impossible to determine, of course; but that type of guess goes for
CTers too, who have this wound being an entry wound)....

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE3_HI.JPG

A bullet entering the upper back and exiting at the lower neck (as
unambiguously stated in the autopsy report) would be perfectly
consistent with striking John Connally.

Naturally, this analysis is as old as the hills on Grandma's chest --
but this "old" analysis is still valid and the most-logical scenario
given the totality of evidence in the case.

There hasn't been one conspiracy-slanted theory to totally unseat the
SBT to date. None. (Not that a CTer ever actually is willing to dish up
an exacting CT alternative to the SBT...that's about as easy a task as
pulling teeth out of a wild panther.)

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 4:58:00 PM8/19/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >>> "I said it {JFK's back wound} was an EXIT wound made by an expanded small caliber soft nosed bullet...." <<<
>
> Which must mean that a person hiding on the floorboard of the limo
> fired this shot -- which enters the neck and travels upward to exit the
> back.

Huh??? I thought you were aware of the Croft photo.... It shows a
tiny pieces of JFK's white shirt being blown out through his suit
jacket by the exiting bullet. The trajectory of that shot ( ENTRY
just below the adams apple, and EXIT low and between the shoulder
blades) indicates that the weapon was at an elevation above the car.
The bullet hole in JFK's jacket is EXACTLY where the tiny piece of
white shirt appears in the CROFT photo.


>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
>
> Where do you think the shooter was located who fired this bullet, Sir
> Walter?
>
> Plus -- Why didn't this bullet hit the SS car behind the President,
> which was no more than a few feet behind JFK's limo?

Personally ....In my opinion it did hit the Caddy that the SS were
riding in.
But it had dissipated much of it's energy in traversing JFK's body, and
possibly hit a radiator support bracket, or horn, or some other piece
of metal behind the grill of the Caddy, and fell into the area behind
the grille.


Given such a
> neck-thru-back trajectory, it seems logical that the big SS car WOULD
> have been hit (esp. if you think -- as you no doubt erroneously do --
> that such a shot would be travelling slightly DOWNWARD, instead of
> upward through JFK).
>
> That bullet, given that scenario, would have struck the SS car or,
> possibly the trunk of JFK's car...which, of course, is limo damage that
> did not occur.

Don't show yer ignorance so readily.... The bullet was a TINY (
perhaps 55 grain) .22 caliber bullet. A bullet this size will lose it
energy very rapidly ( Have you ever heard of inertia) Therefore after
passing through JFK's body it's energy was pretty well spent. When it
passed through one of the grill openings and struck some metal behind
the grill it didn't have much more energy than a BB fired from a BB
gun. It simply fell into the area behind the grill of the Caddy.

Walt

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 5:55:06 PM8/19/06
to
Jesus H. Christ! This Walt-Kook might just have surpassed Ben AND
Tom-Sack for the title of #1 Kook on this board (via his latest hunk of
"Croft Shows A JFK Hit" shit).

There's so much totally-unsupportable and illogical CT kookshit in this
latest nonsense of Walter's, it's hard to know where to begin. .....


>>> "I thought you were aware of the Croft photo. It shows tiny pieces of JFK's white shirt being blown out through his suit jacket by the exiting bullet." <<<


LOL!

And ROFL!!

Walt sees "tiny pieces of JFK's shirt being blown out" via the Croft
picture.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8991.jpg

Another LOL is needed.

So, Walt believes JFK was hit at approx. Z161 (which is what the Croft
photo equates to)...but JFK, whose right arm is resting on the door
frame of the car in the Croft photo, then BEGINS a wave AFTER HE'S BEEN
HIT IN THE THROAT BY A BULLET.

Care to explain away the post-Z161 waving (and smiling) of John
Kennedy, Mr. Kook?


>>> "In my opinion, it {a bullet} did hit the Caddy that the SS were riding in." <<<


And nobody noticed the damage (or just flat didn't give a damn)? Or was
this a part of the "cover up" too?

The life of a CT-Kook means endlessly spouting info that's nowhere to
be found in the record, and can never be substantiated beyond the mind
of the kook spouting said shit.

Is that REALLY the way to approach a murder investigation? To kooks
like Walt...evidently it is.


>>> "The bullet was a TINY (perhaps 55 grain) .22 caliber bullet." <<<


~LOL!!~

Why not just use wads of paper and a couple of guys with drinking
straws?

Great assassination plot there -- let's use "tiny" little bullets to
take out the President, instead of using THE MOST POWERFUL
high-velocity types of rifles and ammunition that the plotters could
find, to make sure JFK doesn't leave Dealey Plaza alive.*

* = Of course, in "reality", ANY scenario that has other weapons
involved beyond that of Oswald's C2766 rifle spells doom for these
nitwit Patsy-Framers. Because, quite obviously, "they" couldn't
possibly "hide" every last POTENTIAL non-C2766 wound and bullet and
bullet hole in DP that might have occurred as a result of being
brain-dead enough to green-light a MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY assassination
plot in the first place.

But, then too, I guess these dopes perhaps just wanted to play fair and
give the President (and the SS) a fighting chance once the "tiny"
bullets began to fly. Could that be the explanation, Mr. Kook?

And......

Your theory re. the Croft photo is also completely nutty within the
context of any "Frame Oswald As The Lone Patsy" theory -- which you
also believe in, correct?

IOW -- Why would these Patsy Framers shoot FIRST from the FRONT,
instead of from the REAR (where their one Patsy is supposed to be
located)?

Many CT-Kooks feel the first shot would have most likely come from the
REAR (the TSBD probably, unless you're in bed with Bob "No Shots From
The TSBD" Groden), which would serve as a "diversionary" type shot, to
get witnesses focusing on where the Patsy is located, and (hopefully,
per the CTs) this first shot will also serve as the kill shot, making
ANY frontal shots unnecessary altogether.

Why START the shooting with a frontal shot? Or does Walt-Kook purport
that the shooting began even earlier than Z161?

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 5:56:53 PM8/19/06
to

David VP wrote:
> Walt,
>
> You ACTUALLY believe that the Croft picture shows a bullet exiting
> JFK's back???

Yes ... I'm sure of it.....However after viewing the copy you have
posted the link to, I'm not surprised that you can't see it....Because
I can't see it either. It has disappeared in the color copy that you
are directing people to. The black and white copy published in Pics
of the Pain... shows the tiny white piece of JFK's shirt exiting
EXACTLY where the bullet hole is in JFK's Jacket.

Walt

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 6:23:24 PM8/19/06
to
Walt,

Why does Jack Kennedy START waving again AFTER you say he's been hit by
a bullet? (Didn't he even feel this .22-caliber bullet? Was it THAT
"tiny"?)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154294852.gif

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/2903.gif


Below is a more zoomed-in version of the Croft image. Any "shirt
pieces" visible here? (Ignore the kook comments written in by Jack
White here; White sees conspiracy in every face and every handbag in
DP.).....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-667-1154298788.jpg

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 6:36:53 PM8/19/06
to
>>> "The black and white copy published in Pics of the Pain... shows the tiny white piece of JFK's shirt exiting EXACTLY where the bullet hole is..." <<<

Incredible how the kooks will jump to any conclusion that might lead to
"conspiracy". But this one of Walt's is a real howl!

Everybody who has Richard B. Trask's excellent book "Pictures Of The
Pain"...turn to Page 225. You'll see the B&W Croft photo that Walt
suggests shows a piece of shirt coming out of JFK's back.

But if Walt would just use some common sense and examine OTHER portions
of that B&W copy of the photograph, he'd soon notice OTHER little white
specks throughout other portions of the image. Most notably, look at
the lower righthand part of the pic (to the rear of the car wheel) --
you'll see three or four white "specks", similar to the one that can
indeed be seen on the back of JFK.

Quite clearly, these "specks" are photo anomalies of some sort. But
Walt thinks it's showing proof of JFK being shot. And then, amazingly,
JFK continues to wave and smile after being struck. Remarkable indeed.

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 7:03:12 PM8/19/06
to
The last embarrassing "CT exhibition" from Walt should taint just about
everything else this kook has to say with respect to the Kennedy
case....because how are we to take anything this person says seriously
after such a ridiculous display of illogic (on multiple fronts)
regarding Walt's analysis of the Robert Croft photograph?

In other words, how many times do you allow a kook to "cry wolf" before
you stop listening to his cries altogether?

If Walt's absurdity re. the Croft photo didn't cross that "crying wolf"
line -- I'd like to know why not? And what additional absurd CT notions
would it take to reach that line? (The "Jackie Had A Hatchet In Her
Purse" theory perhaps? Would that be enough to label a CTer with his
proper moniker? i.e., a person who will STOP AT NOTHING to create a
conspiracy in the JFK murder case.)

David VP

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 8:22:50 PM8/19/06
to
>>> "They're trolling, Walt. Testing CT waters, seeing if they need to prepare new disinfo. Been Von Pein's mo since the start..." <<<


As if the perfectly-acceptable WR could possibly be dismantled or
demolished via the crap spouted by the CT-Kooks that reside here.

One of the CT Mottos seems to be -- Why believe anything in the
official report...when you could just as easily believe in crazy stuff
that shall forever remain unprovable (and crazy-sounding)?

Good motto....if you're a kook.

Robert Harris

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 8:24:32 PM8/19/06
to
On 18 Aug 2006 03:29:07 -0700, "Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net>
wrote:

>
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> Hey Walt!
>>
>> I'm going to change the subject before Ben starts getting really
>> mad:-)
>>

>> Do you remember a discussion we had several years ago, about the
>> possibility of a silenced SBT shot from the Daltex at 223?
>>
>> You argued (quite reasonably) that such a thing was not possible
>> because to be totally silent, a shot would have to have been subsonic
>> or under 1100 fps, and therefore, could not have passed through both
>> JFK and Connally.
>
>Robert, You are confused ... I have posted information about the
>probability that at least one silenced weapon was used in murdering
>JFK, and I most certainly would NOT have argued against thet view.

Sorry Walt. I was indeed, thinking of another Walt who used to post
regularly in the newsgroup.

>You have me confused with some other poster. However, Now that you
>have broached the subject, let me offer a little info about that idea.
>
>First off....a projectile traveling at 1100 fps will not be subsonic at
>the altitude for Dallas. I believe the bullet would have to be
>traveling about 900fps to be below the sound barrier in Dallas.

I don't think that is correct, Walt. I checked at answer.com which is
usually pretty reliable and they said,

"Sound travels slower with an increased altitude (elevation if you are
on solid earth), primarily as a result of temperature and humidity
changes"

and,

" The speed of sound at sea level in the International Standard
Atmosphere is 1108 ft/second,"

As I recall, Dallas is very slightly, above sea level.


>
>>
>> Since I have become increasingly convinced that a silenced shot did
>> indeed, go through both of them, I've been collecting some data on
>> this issue that might be significant.
>
>I never argued this point with you before, but I don't believe a
>subsonic bullet will have the ENERGY to go through both men. It true
>one could fire a needle at a subsonic velocity and "maybe" with luck it
>could pass through both men but it's obvious that a needle wouldn't do
>much damage and it certainly wouldn't be lethal.
>>
>> Some fairly wicked weapons fire subsonic bullets, including a 38
>> special and most .45 caliber handguns, but there is one thing that we
>> didn't think about at the time we were bickering about this.
>
>Both the 38 and the 45 caliber BULLETS ( NOT cartridge) can be fired at
>subsonic velocities, and the will be deadly at close range....(up to 50
>yards) But I don't believe that it's possible to fire the 38 special
>CARTRIDGE silently. The velocity is simply to high, and the BULLET
>would break the sound barrier causing a "sonic boom".

I was not claiming that those weapons were used - only giving them as
an example of how powerful subsonic bullets can be.

I find it hard to believe that a sharp-tipped bullet could not
penetrate through two men, especially if it didn't strike bone in the
first of its victims.


>
>
>>
>> The ability of a bullet to penetrate is not based solely on velocity
>> and mass. It is also based on the shape of the bullet. A rapier will
>> pierce flesh with almost no pressure at all, but place a ball bearing
>> on the tip and Charles Atlas would have a hard time sticking it to
>> somebody.
>
>Absolutely correct...no argument
>
>I think at the time I posted info about this subject, I believe I used
>a golf ball and a bowling ball as examples of the hitting power and
>penetrating power. A slow moving large ball like a bowling ball could
>not penetrate a cardboard box, but it probably would do sever damage to
>the box, Whereas a fast moving ball like a golf ball being driven from
>a Tee would probably blast right through at least one side of the
>cardboard box. ( a 1/2 inch ball bearing would penetrate both sides of
>the box )
>
>
>> Remember what Thompson discovered when he interviewed the hospital
>> personnel who handled the stretcher bullet?
>>
>> They said it didn't match CE-399 and that the tip was much more
>> *pointed* than the MC bullet was. If that is correct, then doesn't it
>> make sense that such a bullet might have had far better penetration
>> properties than other bullets?
>
>Not exactly correct.....I believe Thompson said that he THOUGHT the
>bullet he "found" was more pointed.

Actually, Thompson was not the witness. He was an author who
interviewed people at the hospital who handled the bullet.

Both O.P. Wright and Thompson, were adamant that CE-399 was NOT the
bullet they handed.


Robert Harris

> When the Warren Commission
>"investigators" ( cover-up artists) showed Thompson CE 399 he said
>THOUGHT that remembered that the bullet was more ponted ( a spire
>point) Thomsons memory may not have been totally reliable ( most
>peoples aren't) six months after the fact.
>
>I don't buy the idea that the bullet Thompson "found" was a spire
>point.
>The conspiritors weren't the world's smartest people ....BUT they knew
>that if they were going to successfully frame the patsy, they would
>have to use BULLETS (not cartridges) that could have been fired from
>the rifle that he was photographed holding in CE 133A. They knew that
>the Mannlicher Carcano fired a
>long, ROUND nosed, 6.5mm BULLET. They weren't so stupid as to use
>totally different ammo and think that they could frame the patsy.
>
>
>>
>> Also, wouldn't a much smaller tip and lower velocity make more sense
>> when we consider the very tiny dimensions of both JFK's back and neck
>> wounds??
>>
>
>Robert I suggest that you do a little research about Mannlicher Carcano
>ammunition.
>You should learn that the Italians made several various types of
>BULLETS ( projectiles) that fit the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano CARTRIDGE.
> Among the types the manufactured were a fragmenting bullet, and an
>exploding bullet.....either type could have caused the damage that JFK
>suffered to his skull.
>
>I've just skimmed across the surface of this subject.....we can go into
>in greater detail if you want, but at this point I don't believe your
>idea has merit. I don't believe a silencer equipped weapon could fire
>a projectile with enough ENERGY to PENETRATE two men an be lethal.
>
>P.S. It's also possible that JFK's skull was blown apart by a big slow
>moving hard hitting bullet like a .45.
>The dent in the chrome molding of the Lincoln, looks EXACTLY as it
>would appear if it had been struck by a subsonic .45 caliber bullet. So
>I do believe a silenced .45 caliber weapon was fired from a low
>elevation to the rear of JFK.
>
>Walt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Walt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can you locate any citation or press reports from that first day that would
>> >> support the WCR's assertion?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Robert Harris
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >So, regardless of what he said originally,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This *IS* what the WCR is attempting to assert... what they believed
>> >> >> ORGINALLY!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So there is no "regardless" involved... this *IS* what they meant by the
>> >> >> phrase
>> >> >> "Doctors at Parkland Hospital originally believed..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You can't argue that their "belief" at the time of their testimony was what
>> >> >> they
>> >> >> *originally* believed, since their first day statements and WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
>> >> >> contradict it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Warren Commission lied. It's just that simple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >only Perry could tell the
>> >> >> >world what he was thinking or believed. Therefore, technically speaking,
>> >> >> >I don't think we can call this a "lie".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't make the mistake of believing that what Parkland staff *testified*
>> >> >> to months later is identical with their written reports, and reported
>> >> >> statements of that first day.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Warren Commission certainly knew that the Parkland Staff had to be
>> >> >> "brought around" to the idea that the neck wound might have been an exit...
>> >> >> they must have known that they were promulgating a lie...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Robert Harris
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Granted, you probably made the best case that can be made... even a LNT'er
>> >> >> couldn't have improved on it... but it falls short of the mark.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's
>> >> >> >> well known today that the Secret Service sent two agents to Parkland, who
>> >> >> >> succeeded in changing minds about the direction of the neck wound by
>> >> >> >> telling
>> >> >> >> Parkland that the autopsy showed this. (3H 363-364)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>>> Interestingly, although there were known to have been interviews conducted
>> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> Parkland staff, a total of 24 Secret Service and 6 FBI interviews - yet
>> >> >> >> not a
>> >> >> >> single one of these reports were included in the 26 volumes - according to
>> >> >> >> Sylvia Meagher.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The Warren Commission simply lied.
>> >
>>
>> There is no question that an honest man will evade.
>>
>> The JFK History Page
>> http://jfkhistory.com/
>

There is no question that an honest man will evade.

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

aeffects

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 8:49:14 PM8/19/06
to

man, when nobody responds to your post[s] I guess you feel the need to
respond to them yourself (three in a row, right here) ..... Jesus boy
-- settle the hell down! Been 43 years now and we got a way to go, YET!
You youngsters....

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 9:59:56 PM8/19/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >>> "The black and white copy published in Pics of the Pain... shows the tiny white piece of JFK's shirt exiting EXACTLY where the bullet hole is..." <<<
>
> Incredible how the kooks will jump to any conclusion that might lead to
> "conspiracy". But this one of Walt's is a real howl!
>
> Everybody who has Richard B. Trask's excellent book "Pictures Of The
> Pain"...turn to Page 225. You'll see the B&W Croft photo that Walt
> suggests shows a piece of shirt coming out of JFK's back.
>
> But if Walt would just use some common sense and examine OTHER portions
> of that B&W copy of the photograph, he'd soon notice OTHER little white
> specks throughout other portions of the image.

Thank you for admitting that you can see the little white speck of
something that is EXACTLY where the bullet hole is in JFK's Jacket.
I'm sure that you think it a mere conincidence that an "anomaly" just
happens to be at the very spot where the bullet hole is in the Jacket.


You may dismiss it as something unexplainable ( an anomaly ) but when
it is viewed in the totality of the ENTRY throat wound and the back
EXIT wound it becomes explainable.

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 10:28:25 PM8/19/06
to

aeffects wrote:
>
> man, when nobody responds to your post[s] I guess you feel the need to
> respond to them yourself (three in a row, right here) ..... Jesus boy
> -- settle the hell down! Been 43 years now and we got a way to go, YET!
> You youngsters....


Dave.....Von Peon can't "settle down"....He recognizes that the
information I just posted needs to be defused, and discredited....
Because it a much more logical, and believable scenario that the Warren
Commission attempt to pass off as fact. Von Peanut Brain can try to
defuse it but anybody who has read the post will know which scenario is
the most logical....The shot from the front through the throat and
exiting at the back, or the shot from a high elevation which struck JFK
between the shoulder blades, and then deflected upward to emerge at his
adams apple, then deflecting off NOTHING and striking J.Connally in the
back to emerge and shatter his wrist, and then bury itself in his left
thigh. And then work it's way back out to fall on a stretcher in
pristine condition.

I'm confident that most rational people will see immediately which
scenario is most likely the truth......

"Rational people".... That excludes you Von Peon.

Walt

tomnln

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 10:42:02 PM8/19/06
to
Your precious WCR was NOT Allowed in a U S Court Room Trial.

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156033370.3...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 11:14:31 PM8/19/06
to

Yeah, very slightly, as in 400 feet above sea level. But the point is
that looking up book values for theoretical conditions is very silly
when the acoustical scientists calculated it at 1123 fps.

>
>>> Since I have become increasingly convinced that a silenced shot did
>>> indeed, go through both of them, I've been collecting some data on
>>> this issue that might be significant.
>> I never argued this point with you before, but I don't believe a
>> subsonic bullet will have the ENERGY to go through both men. It true
>> one could fire a needle at a subsonic velocity and "maybe" with luck it
>> could pass through both men but it's obvious that a needle wouldn't do
>> much damage and it certainly wouldn't be lethal.
>>> Some fairly wicked weapons fire subsonic bullets, including a 38
>>> special and most .45 caliber handguns, but there is one thing that we
>>> didn't think about at the time we were bickering about this.
>> Both the 38 and the 45 caliber BULLETS ( NOT cartridge) can be fired at
>> subsonic velocities, and the will be deadly at close range....(up to 50
>> yards) But I don't believe that it's possible to fire the 38 special
>> CARTRIDGE silently. The velocity is simply to high, and the BULLET
>> would break the sound barrier causing a "sonic boom".
>
> I was not claiming that those weapons were used - only giving them as
> an example of how powerful subsonic bullets can be.
>

Some rounds are specifically made to be subsonic in order to be used
with silencers. Max 1100 fps.
Most .38 Special rounds ARE subsonic anyway. I would recommend any round
provide at least 100 foot pounds at impact for a kill. See Mythbusters
for more about penetration and lethality.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 11:20:27 PM8/19/06
to

It wasn't an entrance hole. And I have looked at the angles involved and
there is not a clear shot to the throat from the grassy knoll.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 19, 2006, 11:26:16 PM8/19/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>>> "I have always said that the bullet hit the back, hit the tip of the vertebra and exited the throat." <<<
>
> And then it went.....where exactly?
>


Over the windshield.

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:05:55 AM8/20/06
to

Walt wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> >
> > man, when nobody responds to your post[s] I guess you feel the need to
> > respond to them yourself (three in a row, right here) ..... Jesus boy
> > -- settle the hell down! Been 43 years now and we got a way to go, YET!
> > You youngsters....
>
>
> Dave.....Von Peon can't "settle down"....He recognizes that the
> information I just posted needs to be defused, and discredited....
> Because it a much more logical, and believable scenario that the Warren
> Commission attempt to pass off as fact. Von Peanut Brain can try to
> defuse it but anybody who has read the post will know which scenario is
> the most logical...

Logic isn't a Lone Neuter strong suit, Walt. We're gonna either have to
carry these moron's to the finish line... or kick 'em across it.
Personally, I prefer the latter.

.The shot from the front through the throat and
> exiting at the back, or the shot from a high elevation which struck JFK
> between the shoulder blades, and then deflected upward to emerge at his
> adams apple, then deflecting off NOTHING and striking J.Connally in the
> back to emerge and shatter his wrist, and then bury itself in his left
> thigh. And then work it's way back out to fall on a stretcher in
> pristine condition.
>
> I'm confident that most rational people will see immediately which
> scenario is most likely the truth......

By now, most of the lurkers know the truth :)

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:44:27 AM8/20/06
to
Only a fucking moron can believe that JFK was hit as early as Z161.

Why doesn't Walt-Kook explain away JFK's waving & smiling as late as
Z188 AFTER BEING HIT BY A BULLET AT Z161.

You gonna ignore that little snafu in your theory forever, Walt?

Plus -- You won't find a single other rational and reasonable person on
the planet who agrees with you, Walt, regarding your "White Speck =
JFK's Shirt" bullshit. Mainly due to the fact JFK has obviously not
been hit as early as Z161...plus there's the unbelievable "coincidence"
factor re. Croft snapping his shutter at the exact INSTANT to capture a
piece of "shirt" in flight. (Which would be similar to the other
amazing piece of photography in the case....Mary Moorman's....as she
supposedly, per some CTers, snapped her pic in perfect time to capture
something virtually uncaptureable -- the "muzzle flash" of a rifle
blast.)

Of course, Walt's latest idiotic notion re. the "white speck" on the
Croft picture is debunked via many means, one of which is the fact that
(as Walt himself noted) the "speck" is gone when viewing any color
version of the photo that is available (more "photo fakery", I
suppose?) -- indicating that the various white specks (as pointed out
to Walt The Kook earlier, and ignored by him of course) are obviously
photo irregularities of some type on the B&W print Trask used in his
1994 book.

Somebody needs to lasso this Walt nut. He should be thoroughly
embarrassed at even the suggestion that JFK was hit by Z161, because
there's verifiable proof on the Z-Film in later frames he was hit much
later.

But, then again, how can you "reason" with the "unreasonable"? A
difficult task at best.

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:55:25 AM8/20/06
to
>>> "Logic isn't a Lone Neuter strong suit, Walt. We're gonna either have to carry these morons to the finish line...or kick 'em across it." <<<

LOL.

Here we have kooks backing up other kooks, even when Kook #1's theory
is so OBVIOUSLY filled with nothing but shit (from every possible
angle). I love it!

Healy doesn't even have the guts to admit that Walt's "white
speck/Z161" theory is full of numerous holes, or the guts just to stay
on the sidelines for this particular ludicrous argument of Walt's.

Instead, Healy decides to jump in with both feet (even to back up Walt
on a theory like this crazy one that nobody else here believes in for
one second, not even HEALY-Kook).

So, instead of keeping his goddamn, mother-fucking mouth shut (which he
should have done if this fucking asswipe had any integrity whatsoever),
Healy decides it would be another wise time to berate ME some more for
setting Walt straight on something that even HEALY doesn't believe in!!

That's called "Kooks Incorporated".

Absolutely mind-boggling.

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 8:16:27 AM8/20/06
to

David VP wrote:
>> Instead, Healy decides to jump in with both feet (even to back up Walt
> on a theory like this crazy one that nobody else here believes in for
> one second, not even HEALY-Kook).
>
> So, instead of keeping his goddamn, mother-fucking mouth shut (which he
> should have done if this fucking asswipe had any integrity whatsoever),
> Healy decides it would be another wise time to berate ME some more for
> setting Walt straight on something that even HEALY doesn't believe in!!
>
> That's called "Kooks Incorporated".
>
> Absolutely mind-boggling.

What did I tell ya, Mr Healy..... We've got the dumb bastard foaming
at the mouth, and spittin like a babbling moron.
He simply can't refute a logical scenario with the nonsense THEORY
proposed by Arlen "The Spook" Specter. All he can do is spit and
sputter and hurl insults and obscenities. I love it when we've got em
on the ropes. It's just a matter of time before he's down and out for
the count.

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 8:24:25 AM8/20/06
to

Dr. Marsh, I've looked and looked but I can't find your name listed
anywhere as an attending Dr. who viewed the small punctuate entrance
wound in JFK's throat that day.
Could you direct me to verification that you were there and inspected
that entry wound?

Munch Grasses

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 8:25:54 AM8/20/06
to

Dr. Marsh, I've looked and looked but I can't find your name listed


anywhere as an attending Dr. who viewed the small punctuate entrance
wound in JFK's throat that day.
Could you direct me to verification that you were there and inspected
that entry wound?

Munch Grasses

Walt

>

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 11:31:00 AM8/20/06
to

Well Walt, in another day or two, these 'known' Lone Neuter's are
being *plonked*. There'll be a new crop of Nutter's coming down the
pike in 10 days or so [new semester, ya know]!

Over-the-hill, Nutter morons can spend the rest of their time jerking
each other off !

Von Pein can head for Cooperstown and Lower-y cna sit in the corner
babbeling to himself (which he's proved he's more than capable of
doing....)

Vin Bugliosi, are you catching all of this?

> Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 11:54:02 AM8/20/06
to

David VP wrote:
> Only a fucking moron can believe that JFK was hit as early as Z161.
>
> Why doesn't Walt-Kook explain away JFK's waving & smiling as late as
> Z188 AFTER BEING HIT BY A BULLET AT Z161.

Zap's camera ran at 18.3 fps. IF Croft snapped his shutter at Z 161
then we have only 1.47 seconds ( tick-to---) elapsed between Z188-
Z161. LESS THAN a second and a half between the tiny bullet striking
JFK in the throat and the hand wave. How long does it take a man to
react to being hit by a tiny little bullet Von Peanut Brain?? JFK's
reaction to being hit by a tiny bullet may have one of puzzlement for
just a second.
The tiny high velocity bullet didn't have the heavy impact of a larger
lower velocity bullet, therefore JFK may have been puzzled for just an
instant about what was happening.
Had the bullet made a direct hit on the spine ( it only missed by 1/4
inch) it would have killed JFK instantly, but it missed hitting the
spine directly and therefore he probably was puzzled by the sensation.


At anyrate, Von Peanut Brain, yer dumbass attempt to refute my post
only exposes yer ignorance. JFK's action 1.47 seconds after being hit
by a tiny bullet are easily explainable as I just demonstrated. It's
not as if he was hit by a cannon ball.

Aren't you embarrassed for making such a dumbass claim??

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:02:46 PM8/20/06
to

Lower-y can sit in the corner babbeling to himself (which he's proved


he's more than capable of doing....)

LMAO!!..... What an apt description of Low Life's antics...

Walt

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:05:09 PM8/20/06
to


Oh no. Now Walt is claiming to be an expert with the throat wound.
Please, tell us just where that bullet came from, won't you?

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:13:24 PM8/20/06
to

"I love it when we've got em on the ropes".... I know I shouldn't take
so much pleasure in kickin ass...but that's just my ornery nature.....
and he deserves it anyway!!

Walt

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:20:39 PM8/20/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >>> "Logic isn't a Lone Neuter strong suit, Walt. We're gonna either have to carry these morons to the finish line...or kick 'em across it." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Here we have kooks backing up other kooks, even when Kook #1's theory
> is so OBVIOUSLY filled with nothing but shit (from every possible
> angle). I love it!
>
> Healy doesn't even have the guts to admit that Walt's "white
> speck/Z161" theory is full of numerous holes, or the guts just to stay
> on the sidelines for this particular ludicrous argument of Walt's.


-- when the film got to the NPIC, wasn't it them that opined Kennedy
was hit multiple times, isn't that documented somewhere...Yeah, the
AARB interview Homer McMahon Chief Color Photo section of the NPIC
(National Photgraphic Interpretation Center)? After reviewing the film
10 or so times, he (Homer) opined Kenndy was shot 6 to 8 times from at
LEAST 3 different directions (Great Zapruder Film Hoax, 2003 Catfeet
Press, Preface p.xiii, para3.) Now this Homer guy was charged with
extracting, the blowing up [increasing their size, mightly] frames from
the Z-film for governmental *briefing boards*. You can check out
Appendix C of the same book for the complete details of ALL NPIC
interviews, under AARB letterhead.

Now, I don't see that kind of infomation, action in the current extant
film, doesn't mean it isn't there, I don't see it -- I wouldn't be
surprised if someone has gleemed something from a Z-frame or two....

So cool your heels Von Pein, your making a fool out of yourself, AGAIN
-- Impeach the AARB's NPIC testimony then resume blowing smoke up
everybody's ass. I believe you can find it in the Zavada Report and
elsewhere in ARRB documents....

Doug Horne might have additional comments regarding this somewhere, you
know, Horne, the ARRB investigator, who in fact interviewed Mr. McMahon
and a co-worker multiple times [whose name escapes me] heard tell he's
doing a book too! Probably won't be to kind to Roalnd Zavada, either...
(Actually Doug Horne is the author of Appendix 'C' in GZFH)

> Instead, Healy decides to jump in with both feet (even to back up Walt
> on a theory like this crazy one that nobody else here believes in for
> one second, not even HEALY-Kook).

Look if your going to step all over your dick, in front of God and
everybody else, take the DAMN golf shoes OFF. You got to take on the
ARRB, fool! I'm just a repeater of this bad news, with cites for all!
Has a nicer ring than "Bugliosi told me so", eh!

So Walt, my opinion is, your on solid ground, if the guys at the Nat
Photro Interpt Center [NPIC] think Kennedy may of been hit 6, perhaps 8
times, from 3 directions -- you may of picked something up! I won't
make conclusions till I and a host of other film pros see the alleged
in-camera Zapruder film stored at NARA -- Unfortunately, at the moment
I'm not welcomed in that neighborhood

David Healy

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:29:58 PM8/20/06
to

Ah Steve, you got AARB [NPIC] testimony to deal with; 6-8 possible
shots hit Kennedy, from 3 directions -- the guys viewed a film brought
to them by the SS within 24 [more than likely 12] hours of the
assassination, extracted frames for briefing boards ----- etc....

~~whatch'a gonna do when the well runs dry, badboy-badboy~~

How's that chromed dipped, well oiled high-hat doing?

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:33:08 PM8/20/06
to

Please. Answer the question, Walter. Where do you say the throat
shot came from, if you claim it came from the front?

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 12:42:53 PM8/20/06
to

Uh-huh. I know all about te ARRB, David. I was interviewed by 3
people on the board involved in investigating Robert Groden. Don't
you know that?


So, you are one of the people who believe in a triangulation of
gunfire, when the autopsy photos, Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore
film, medical evidience prove the opposite. Go figure.

Oh, and by the way... my "chrome dipped" equipment is doing just fine.
Thank you for asking.

Oh, and by the way, your opinion on the oiled rifle, vs. the "paper
bag" doesnt prove squat. You havent tried the experiments. You
indicated that with your response. That's the problem with you people.
You say this happened and that happened, but, you don't bother to try
experimenting the things you question.

tomnln

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 1:40:45 PM8/20/06
to
steve;
Are you Denying that the rifle was "Well Oiled"?
Are you Denting that "No Oil was found in the bag"?


"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1156092173.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 1:54:05 PM8/20/06
to


my-goodness Steve, I had NO idea.... nor do I care -- give me a
document number.... :)

So, now that you've danced around the NPIC testimony, is this your way
of saying oop's, I don't want to go there....hmm?

Yeah, I recall the Groden fiasco and TESTIMONY, something about he
being less than candid about certain things acquired...who sold what to
who, you were part of that? Lifton tell you a few story's too?

You TESTIFIED, under oath? Or interviewed ON or OFF the record?
Seperating white noise from pink noise, that kind of stuff? Fill us in!

tomnln

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:04:07 PM8/20/06
to
Poor steve;

Bagged Again;

I'd Love to see the answers to this post.


"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156096445.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:09:25 PM8/20/06
to


Well let's see...... The early reports from the authorities, said that
JFK turned around in his seat, and that enabled that dirty S.O.B. Lee
Harvey Oswald who was hiding in the sniper's nest, behind JFK, to shoot
him in the throat. Perhaps that's how it happened, Steve. You
wouldn't doubt the authorities would you Steve? They DID ACKNOWLEDGE
that JFK had been hit in the throat.....they just couldn't figure out
how that "commie"Oswald had pulled off the magic feat.

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:33:49 PM8/20/06
to

That's obvious.....The bullet came out of the barrel of a gun.
geeeeez, I never realized that you didn't know that.

Walt

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:54:55 PM8/20/06
to

Investigating what? You mean your false claim that Groden had stolen
autopsy photos from the National Archives? Thou Shalt not bear false
witness.

>
> So, you are one of the people who believe in a triangulation of
> gunfire, when the autopsy photos, Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore
> film, medical evidience prove the opposite. Go figure.
>

When the autopsy photos indicate an entrance wound in the frontal bone.

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:56:08 PM8/20/06
to

Thats not an answer, Walter. That is sarcasm. That's all you poor JFK
assassination conspiracy buffs have these days.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:57:20 PM8/20/06
to

No. NPIC didn't find 6-8 possible shots. And they did not have the
Zapruder film within 24 hours.

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 2:57:48 PM8/20/06
to

Oh, come one, Walter. Humor me. Tell me from where, in front of JFK,
you propose the bullet came, won't you?

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:02:20 PM8/20/06
to

Of course you "don't care". Thats why you have done nothing within the
case. You are too busy creating theories and sreading manure instead of
doing some actual work on the case.

> So, now that you've danced around the NPIC testimony, is this your way
> of saying oop's, I don't want to go there....hmm?
>

Oh, please, do fill me in on NPIC story.


> Yeah, I recall the Groden fiasco and TESTIMONY, something about he
> being less than candid about certain things acquired...who sold what to
> who, you were part of that? Lifton tell you a few story's too?
>

Why don't you do some research, David. You might be surprised at
what you will discover.

Lifton? No way. He is as nuts as are you, David.


> You TESTIFIED, under oath? Or interviewed ON or OFF the record?
> Seperating white noise from pink noise, that kind of stuff? Fill us in!
>

See above, David.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:03:30 PM8/20/06
to

Just because the ER doctors originally thought it was an entrance is not
alone proof that it was. Do not rely on eyewitness statements. They
later admitted that they were wrong. They didn't know about the back wound.
You can't have a separate bullet for each point of damage.

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:05:30 PM8/20/06
to
Tony,

You are such a stupid idiot. You have absolutely no clue as to what
you are addressing.


> >
> > So, you are one of the people who believe in a triangulation of
> > gunfire, when the autopsy photos, Zapruder film, Nix film, Muchmore
> > film, medical evidience prove the opposite. Go figure.
> >
>
> When the autopsy photos indicate an entrance wound in the frontal bone.

According to whom? Tiny Marsh's analysis of the photos?

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:05:44 PM8/20/06
to

Yes yer right, that's sarcasm ( kinda surprised that you figured that
out)
But you must admit that the authorities DID ACKNOWLEDGE that JFK had
been shot in the throat. Isn't that a FACT Steve?

Walt

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:08:36 PM8/20/06
to

You're as stupid as you talk, Walt.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:15:10 PM8/20/06
to
In article <09GdnTIUIJucL3XZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...

Of course, we don't *have* any other "proof".


>Do not rely on eyewitness statements.


Of course not! For if you do - conspiracy is a given.


>They later admitted that they were wrong.

Based on the natural presumption that an autopsy would be an honest one. It
wasn't, was it?

Had they been given the *true* facts of the autopsy, and not been threatened by
the Secret Service, do you suppose that they would still have "admitted that
they were wrong?"

They weren't ... of course.


>They didn't know about the back wound.


And yet, you take the speculation of doctors who "never knew" about the neck
wound over the opinion of doctors who *DID* see the neck wound.

Well, so did the WCR.


>You can't have a separate bullet for each point of damage.


Of course you can. How silly!


Tell us, Tony... are you ever going to provide a citation for your assertion
that Dr. Humes held two separate 'burn parties', one on Saturday morning, and
one on Sunday?

Or are you going to keep ducking the question?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:19:49 PM8/20/06
to
In article <09GdnTMUIJsSLXXZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...


That is, of course, the testimony. Tony will tell you that black is really
white if you let him.


>And they did not have the
>Zapruder film within 24 hours.


The evidence would tend to show otherwise.


>> ~~whatch'a gonna do when the well runs dry, badboy-badboy~~
>>
>> How's that chromed dipped, well oiled high-hat doing?


"Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday morning." -
Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003

"I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony Marsh
2/5/2003 (21 days later...)

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 3:55:42 PM8/20/06
to

I believe a doctor who routinely dealt with gun shot wounds would be
considered a reliable witness in a courtroom, he may even be considered
an expert. Unless the actual cadaver is presented in the courtroom the
judge has to accept the testimony of the attending doctors. The
attending doctors who actually saw JFK's throat wound, ALL thought it
was an entry wound. It's obvious that the authorities initially
accepted those doctors written statements, when the doctors wrote that
the the tiny punctuate hole in JFK's throat appeared to be an entry
wound, because they attempted to invent a theory that would explain how
that dirty little commie SOB Lee Harvey Oswald had managed to shoot JFK
in the thraot when he was firing from the sniper's nest to the rear of
JFK.
They invented the theory that JFK had turned around and exposed his
throat to Oswald.

Do not rely on eyewitness statements.

The Doctors were not merely "eyewitnesses".... They were part of the
action.

They
> later admitted that they were wrong.

Yes, if they wanted to continue to practice medicine at Parkland they
had to "admit" they were wrong.

They didn't know about the back wound.

So what??? If JFK had a bullet hole in his foot, and they didn't
know about it, would that have any bearing on the entry wound in his
throat??

Let's pretend they had discovered the bullet hole in JFK's back, and
they, the experts that they were, had recognized it as an exit wound??
Then of course the authorities would have been forced to acknowledge
that there was a gunman in front of JFK. Since Oswald was the
designated patsy.....do you think they would have made it appear that
Oswald had fired from behind the picket fence and then ran into the
TSBD. Then once inside he dashed up to the sixth floor, and hid the
rifle before dashing back down to the lunchroom, where Baker and Truly
saw him just seconds after the shooting stopped.

You can't have a separate bullet for each point of damage.

Oh, why Not?? Is it because if each bullet hole was made by a separate
bullet then that would mean that there were seven shots fired in the
span of less than six seconds? Or is it because Oswald couldn't
possibly have inflicted gun shot wounds from several directions??
Either way, you are forced to acknowledge that your statement above is
wrong .....and there could have been a separate bullet for each
wound......Only Oswald could NOT have inflicted them all by his
lonesome.

Walt

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 4:03:42 PM8/20/06
to

Well OK...so I'm stupid....But that doesn't address the question I
asked you Steve.

Maybe because I'm stupid, I didn't ask the question right. I'll try to
simplify it...

Did the authorities ACKNOWLEDGE that JFK had been shot in the throat.?

Is that a FACT Steve?

Walt

Steve

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 4:18:01 PM8/20/06
to


You are asking a loaded question.

The authorities stated that JFK had been shot through the throat, yes.
And, until all the evidence arrived, they *ASSUMED* it was an entrance
wound. But, naturally,you JFK assassination conspiracy buffs try to do
the twist with this, and defend your good dead buddy, Oswald with the
mistake that was made early on in the investigation, where the
authroities thoughtit was an entrance wound.. You know obvioulsy very
little about crime lab work, Walt. Otherwise, you people would realize
that there are errors like this even by today''s standards. That's why
they have to exhume bodies.

Now,please answer my qustion. You think the throat shot came from the
front. From which location, in the front? Where was the gunman
stationed?

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 4:36:51 PM8/20/06
to

No Steve....That's NOT a loaded question. It IS a simple question.


>
> The authorities stated that JFK had been shot through the throat, yes.

And you answered it.....congradulations!

> And, until all the evidence arrived, they *ASSUMED* it was an entrance
> wound.

Awww Steve....you almost slipped out of yer liars coat.....now you want
to put it back on...I'm disappointed.

That "assumption" was based on the the observations of experts who had
seen hundreds of gunshot wounds.

But, naturally,you JFK assassination conspiracy buffs try to do
> the twist with this, and defend your good dead buddy, Oswald

Pssst Steve....I didn't even know Lee Oswald....So I certainly couldn't
have been his "buddy"
And frankly I don't think I would have liked him if I had known
him....He had many of the same traits that I see in LNer's.

with the
> mistake that was made early on in the investigation, where the
> authroities thoughtit was an entrance wound..

I understand that you think the doctors were mistaken.....But keep in
mind...They were EXPERTS who had seen hundreds of gunshot wounds.


You know obvioulsy very
> little about crime lab work, Walt.

Well I can run a gas chromatagraph, and an Ion analyzer......does that
count?

Otherwise, you people would realize
> that there are errors like this even by today''s standards. That's why
> they have to exhume bodies.
>
> Now,please answer my qustion. You think the throat shot came from the
> front. From which location, in the front?

>From the WEST......

Where was the gunman
> stationed? To the WEST of the Limo.

Walt

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 6:25:16 PM8/20/06
to
>>> "IF Croft snapped his shutter at Z 161, then we have only 1.47 seconds elapsed between Z188-Z161. LESS THAN a second and a half between the tiny bullet striking JFK in the throat and the hand wave." <<<

So this moron named Walt actually believes that JFK was hit by a
bullet...and then BEGAN A FRESH WAVE (and continued smiling like a
happy man) AFTER being shot through the neck and back!

Well, anything's possible I suppose. And I guess the sun has a small
chance of rising in the west tomorrow, too. But I wouldn't wager my
next week's CIA/Bugliosi kickback check on it however.

Also -- I assume Walt has double-checked Page 225 of Richard Trask's
book "POTP". Right?

And Walt can therefore explain away the same type of "white specks"
throughout other portions of that B&W Croft copy. Right, Mr. Kook?

Or do you now want to assert that there are some stray "white specks"
on OTHER parts of the pic (that obviously have nothing to do with
bullet exit holes or "shirt" fibers)...but that the one specific
similar-looking speck on JFK's back is STILL a "shirt fiber" exiting a
bullet hole?

Is that really the silly position you want people to swallow (even
though NONE of the "specks" are visible on any color copy of the photo,
verifying right there the specks are photo debris of some ilk)?

Plus -- WHERE was the shooter located who caused this neck-thru-back
shot on JFK? Where COULD this gunman conceivably have been located to
achieve that Z161 shot you purport? He HAD to be someplace, Mister
K-Word. And I'm pretty sure Jackie wasn't packing a .22 in her purse.

Can Walt sink any lower into the CT abyss? Doubtful.

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 6:39:43 PM8/20/06
to
>>> "So cool your heels Von Pein, your [sic] making a fool out of yourself..." <<<


LOL.

Cut the shit, Healy. You don't believe that nut named Walt re. a "Z161
shot" and "shirt fiber visible in Croft" any more than anyone else
here does. And, therefore, you have no legit reason to be in this
thread slapping Walt on the back re. a theory even YOU know is full of
shit.

Walt-Kook espouses the looniest of "Z161" theories...and yet *I* am the
one making a fool out of myself, eh?? That's one to tell George Carlin!
He'll have 'em rolling on the floor in Vegas at his next show with that
one!

I can understand you (a kook named Healy) not wanting to step on the
toes of a precious fellow CT-Kook....and that's all well and good. But
to enter a conversation about JFK being hit as early as Z161 (and all
that other Walt baloney he's spouting while attempting to support his
nutty notion) is the height of hypocrisy IMO.

But, I guess that's par for the "Kook Kourse" here in CT-ville. After
all, you and Laz love to kiss Ben-Kook's ass day-in, day-out too. How
you can stand that odor is remarkable in and of itself.

No thanks! I'll stick to VB. He smells much better. And so does his
CS&L re. the JFK assassination.

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 7:10:52 PM8/20/06
to

Damn Healy, tell me your secret..... How do you get Von Peanut Brain
so riled?
If I knew yer secret, then I too could rub salt in his wounds. He
doesn't love me ( breaks my heart) but it's obvious that he despises
you..... What have you done besides shove the facts up his nose...

Walt

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 7:44:12 PM8/20/06
to

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 8:29:20 PM8/20/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >>> "So cool your heels Von Pein, your [sic] making a fool out of yourself..." <<<
>
>
> LOL.
>
> Cut the shit, Healy. You don't believe that nut named Walt re. a "Z161
> shot" and "shirt fiber visible in Croft" any more than anyone else
> here does. And, therefore, you have no legit reason to be in this
> thread slapping Walt on the back re. a theory even YOU know is full of
> shit.
>
> Walt-Kook espouses the looniest of "Z161" theories...and yet *I* am the
> one making a fool out of myself, eh?? That's one to tell George Carlin!
> He'll have 'em rolling on the floor in Vegas at his next show with that
> one!
>
> I can understand you (a kook named Healy) not wanting to step on the
> toes of a precious fellow CT-Kook....and that's all well and good. But
> to enter a conversation about JFK being hit as early as Z161 (and all
> that other Walt baloney he's spouting while attempting to support his
> nutty notion) is the height of hypocrisy IMO.

Well look Dave, if I got to spell it out to you, follow the bouncing
ball -- photo interpreation specialists see the Z-film with 24 hours of
the assassination, after 10 viewings one of the conclusions they come
to is JFK was hit 6-8 times, from 3 different directions.

The current extant Z-film does not show JFK being hit 6-8 times, but 1
or 2 times from at least 1 direction, still with me? Makes me wonder
what the hell film these NPIC photo interp guys are viewing ... sure as
hell isn't the one I've seen.

Now Walt here thinks he's spotted a frame in the current extant film
where JFK may have been hit, that's a distinct possibility based on
AARB NPIC testimony. I can't see it, however, that doesn't mean
anything--- your problem Dave ole buddy is; you buy as gospel Z-frame
number sequencing. I have do not have that illusion. Z-161, what the
hell does THAT number mean IF, the Zapruder film was altered? NOTHING,
NADA, ZIPPO, ZILCH! See the dilemma? Further, you know, there's nobody
that can give me an exact date FBI-SA Shaneyfelt numbered those damn
Z-frames. Best ANYONE can do is mid February '64... What's your take on
that?

Now over the years there's been recurring rumors regarding others
viewing a different version of the Z-film, could that be the SAME film
[or copy of] that came to the NPIC withing 24 hours of the
assassination? Btw, the film was delivered to the NPIC by the Secret
Service, per the Chief Photo Interprator? Possible? Or is it 'ANOTHER'
version of the alleged Zapruder in-camera original -- There enough
questions here Dave to make one and all question the sanity for paying
16 million dollars for Mr. Zapruder's film...

Now here's my conclusion: the Zapruder film alteration issue is a C A N
A R D, foisted on us as a bottomless pit. Drive the CTer's down a road
that is a endless loop.... Keep them away from the remaining WCR
evidence and testimony -- hopefully they'll go away.... Sound about
right, Dave, or does the confusion mount?

All the nonesense you and others post here, is a farce.... regurgitated
McAdams bullshit from 15 years ago, it's never changed -- so knock
yourself out, pal!

BTW, Walt forgot more about JFK assassination related evidence than
you'll ever have in your memory banks.... truck on....

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 8:44:06 PM8/20/06
to
The last hunk of Healy-authored crap is pure CT spin. And it also
doesn't address two critical portions of Walt-Kook's "analysis"....

1.) The Croft photo (B&W), which Walt says contains a piece of JFK's
shirt flying off of him (even though I easily debunked that...times
two....via "other similar specks" all over that same POTP image...plus
the fact the specks are not there on the color versions of the photo).

2.) WHERE was the shooter located who supposedly shot JFK in the
throat? Given that Walt-Kook thinks he KNOWS the EXACT TRAJECTORY (via
the inshoot/outshoot wounds on JFK), he should easily be able to give
an estimate as to WHERE this shooter was located. Saying "west of the
limo" is pretty weak, don't ya think?

I think JFK's killer was "east of the limo". Should that win me any
points with you kooks?


>>> "BTW, Walt forgot more about JFK assassination related evidence than you'll ever have in your memory banks..." <<<


Yeah, and all of that kookshit is best forgotten too. Let it stay that
way.

BTW, Healy, have you wiped Walt's ass yet today? You seem to enjoy
cleaning up his messes, so I just figured...you know...

Walt

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 10:44:30 PM8/20/06
to

Thank you Dave, ....and it's true, I have forgotten an awful lot of
important info about the murder of JFK. .... and saying I've forgotten
more than VP will ever know isn't sayin a whole hell of a lot.....
because he will never know very much, he believes that the Warren
Report is the bible of the Kennedy assassination and that limits the
amount of knowledge he could gain.

I'm going to tell you a little about I came to KNOW that Lee Oswald did
not murder JFK as the Warren Commission claimed..... I cheered when
Jack Ruby murdered Lee Oswald.... I felt that Ruby had done us a great
favor. I hated Oswald because the radio and TV painted a picture of him
as a sneaky, cowardly, anti American and a communist who was the head
of the Fair Play for Cuba Commitee. But it wasn't long before I
developed a feeling that something smelly fishy. I read "Death of a
President" and my skepticism rose...I felt that Manchester went a
little overboard in attempting to convince the reader that Oswald
really was the "Lone Nut" killer of JKF.
I read the Warren Report and grew more suspictious. I studied the 26
volumnes and learned that the Warren Report was a gross distortion of
the actual witnesses testimony. What really cinched it for me was when
I read about Henry Wade's (I hope he's sizzling in hell) Saturday
morning 11 /23/ 63 "news conference". Henry Wade was standing on the
front steps of the Police station and answering reporters questions.
After about ten minutes he said he was about ready to wrap up the
session and a reporter asked.." Is there anything else you can tell us
about the case? Wade acted like he thought about the question for a
few seconds and then said " Oh, did I mention that his finger prints
were found on the gun?" The reporters of course had never heard that
because it hadn't happened. Here was the D.A. telling them that
Oswald's finger prints had been found on the rifle. That information
coming from the D.A. was as good as a confession from Oswald and their
papers published the lie which convinced the gullible unsuspecting
public that Oswald was the killer.

I read that and knew that Wade had lied ( Oswald's prints were not ever
found on the TSBD rifle and that's a FACT) I can hear the LNer's
screaming B.S!...but it is a FACT.
that I can verify for anybody who truely wants to know how I can be so
sure about this.

When it first became apparent to me that the Warren Report was a
lie....I was almost physically sick. I was raised to respect
authority, and I always thought the FBI was the epitomy of Law and
Order, and here I was being forced to face the reality that much of
what I believed and cherished was a lie. Commonsense dictated that if
there had been a conspiracy to murder JFK, it could not have succeeded
without the cooperation of the FBI, because there is only two
choices..... Either Hoover's FBI was so inept that it couldn't uncover
the conspiracy, or Hoover was one of the conspirators. I simply could
not accept that the FBI was an inept bunch of boobs who couldn't find
their ass with their hands in their back pockets..... so I opted for
the only other choice. (Hoovers well known hatred for the Kennedy's
influenced my thinking.)

I think that's enough rambling...... and I doubt that this will change
anybody's mind, one way or the other. If a person really wants to
learn the truth he must study the records and be honest with himself.
There is a shortcut to learning the truth... but I'm not going to
reveal that shortcut..... but if one studies as much info as he can
find about the Mannlicher Carcano rifle it will become clear that
Oswald's prints could NOT have been found on the TSBD rifle as claimed
by Henry Wade.


Walt

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 10:59:47 PM8/20/06
to
>>> "Oswald's prints were not ever found on the TSBD rifle and that's a FACT. I can hear the LNers screaming 'B.S.'! But it is a FACT. That I can verify for anybody who truly wants to know how I can be so sure about this." <<<

But Walt The K-Word (in the "Ben Tradition") will never ever be able to
do so....because he can't. And that's a fact.

>>> "I think that's enough rambling..." <<<

Yeah...no kidding.

BTW, a violin might have helped your above soliloquy; in addition to a
photo of Oswald with a halo encircling his cranium. That would have
been a nice touch, to boot.

David VP

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 11:17:10 PM8/20/06
to
BTW Walt:

Do you plan on ever answering my question re. the "other white specks"
seen in the POTP Croft photo?

aeffects

unread,
Aug 20, 2006, 11:48:47 PM8/20/06
to

Walt, There's hope some of these clowns will see the light, but I'm not
holding my breath

David Healy

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages