If JFK Was Shot By Multiple Guns, Then Why Is It.....?
David VP
A CONSPIRACY, THEN.........
1.) Why does every scrap of ballistics evidence in the record of both
the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders lead straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's
weaponry? There's not a bullet, a bullet fragment, or a bullet shell
(or a gun) surrounding either murder that doesn't spell "Oswald's
Guns". Why? And if Oswald was a mere "patsy" and his guns weren't
actually used at all on 11/22 (as many conspiracists believe is the
case), then an even bigger question is...HOW was this pulled off so
nicely (times 2 murder scenes)? (And: Using the excuse that a gob of
stuff was "planted" and/or "faked", without a single bit of hard
evidence to back up such allegations, is the pinnacle of CT
desperation.)
2.) Why is it that less than 5% of the total witnesses in DP heard
gunshots coming from more than ONE DISTINCT GENERAL LOCATION (front vs.
rear) on 11/22? .... Witness accounts are not always very reliable,
granted. But 99 out of 104 earwitnesses (via John McAdams' poll
results) hearing shots from only ONE single locality (rather than two
or more) if there HAD, in fact, been two or more shooters (both front
and rear) is a mighty strange occurrence....not to mention mighty
convenient for any and all of the "real killers" located throughout the
Plaza. Could some have been mistaken? Sure. But 99 of 104? What are the
odds of that large a % NOT hearing what REALLY occurred on 11/22 (i.e.,
shots coming from at LEAST three differing locations in DP, via ANY
anti-SBT theory a CTer chooses to put in the place of the SBT)?
3.) If a total of up to 6 or 8 shots were fired in DP (or however many
above the number "3"), then please explain how it was that 100% of the
NEWSMEN, REPORTERS, AND OTHER MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES who were in the
motorcade and told of their experience just a matter of minutes after
the event said they each heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS fired? .... Did the
"real killers" just get lucky (again) with respect to this important
information that was going out Live to the world, starting with
Merriman Smith's initial UPI newswire bulletin at 12:34 PM? Did the
"real killers" (numbering up to 4 or 5 by some CTer accounts) just get
extremely lucky that no more than THREE shots exactly, the maximum
number it was later determined that Oswald could have fired from his
gun in the given timeframe and the number of shots matching the number
of spent rifle shells in the SN, were heard by Smith, as well as by Jay
Watson, Robert MacNeil, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Jack Bell....all
of whom were in a direct position to almost-instantly report their
"Three-Shot" account to America? .... Man, those "real" assassins must
have had some magical powers that day indeed, as they were somehow able
to mask all of those "other" shots and get the overall assassination
fusillade to funnel down to JUST THREE audible gunblasts to be
conveniently heard by the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza,
including (as far as I am aware) 100% of the media who reported the
event minutes later via newswires, TV, and radio.
4.) If the SBT is a bunch of hooey -- How is it even remotely possible
that THREE separate shots from THREE distinctly-different gunmen are
going to end up causing the wounds on the two victims in JFK's car that
were inflicted, so that this wound "pattern" on two men is SO DAMN
CLOSE to a "SBT-like wound pattern" that the SBT can even be remotely
considered by ANYBODY after the assassination? .... Plus: Where are
these bullets that "replace" the SBT's official bullet in the record
(CE399)? Again, assuming that all three of these mystery missiles just
"vanished", "got lost", or were "swept under the carpet" by unknown
conspirators is an CT exercise that is wrought with disingenuousness
and a lack of verifiable proof of any kind whatsoever.
5.) Why does Lee Harvey Oswald act like a very guilty man after 12:30
PM on 11/22/63 (if he never killed anybody that day in Dallas)? (Segues
into #6 below.....)
6.) If Lee Oswald was nothing but an innocent "patsy", how did the
clever "patsy plotters" get Oswald, their one and only dupe, to do all
of the following things on 11/22/63:
a.) How did the plotters get Oswald to show up for work at all on the
morning of 11/22?
b.) How did they guarantee that Oswald would stay at work (and INSIDE
THE BUILDING) until after JFK was shot at 12:30 PM?
c.) How did these miracle plotters manage to arrange for Patsy Oswald
to stay completely out of sight of ANY eyewitnesses at precisely 12:30
PM, the crucial time when the plotters couldn't afford to have their
"Patsy" spotted anywhere but on the 6th Floor (with a gun) taking shots
at President Kennedy?
d.) How did the patsy-plotters know for a fact which TSBD book boxes
Lee Oswald had touched on 11/22 (or 11/21), so that the bad guys could
use those precise cartons (laden with Oswald's prints) within the
Sniper's Nest on Friday? Did the conspirators just got lucky that
Oswald just happened to touch two of the boxes that were found deep
inside the SN, including the rifle-rest carton?
e.) How did the conspirators manage to arrange for Oswald to make a
suspicious-looking and out-of-the-ordinary trip to Irving on 11/21? And
how did they get LHO to carry a bulky-looking package into work with
him on 11/22? (Was Oswald the most-cooperative Patsy in history...or
just the dumbest?)
f.) Why does Oswald leave the TSBD at approx. 12:33 (and later lie
about why he left)?
g.) Why does Oswald kill Officer J.D. Tippit (if he didn't kill JFK)?
.... No CTer shall ever be able to reconcile the Tippit slaying into a
believable and reasonable "Oswald's Innocent Of Killing JFK" scenario.
Because if Oswald HADN'T just shot JFK, why would he START killing
people less than an hour later on 10th Street? Why?
h.) Assuming Oswald wasn't TOTALLY ignorant of the ENTIRE so-called
"plot" that surrounded him, how in the world did the plotters get
Oswald to keep his mouth shut for 45+ hours while in custody? Was Lee
just being nice toward the people he might have suspected had just set
him up for multiple murders? .... Or did Lee truly know absolutely
NOTHING about any of the details (small or large) re. the assassination
that has now been placed squarely on the shoulders of him and him alone
in the hours after JFK and Tippit were shot to death? And if the latter
is true....what was in that package he took to work? And why does he
have to lie about so much stuff after his arrest?
7.) If JFK and JBC had actually been struck by several more bullets
than just the two that the WC determined likely struck the victims,
then why doesn't the Zapruder Film show more definitive "He Was Shot
Right THERE!" moments within the famous 26-second motion picture? (At
least one or two more such moments should be readily-noticeable on the
film if some of the CTers are right, like Bob Groden. Or did ALL of
these various "hits" occur while both victims were behind the sign for
that whopping one second in real time?)
8.) Instead of the SBT and Bullet CE399, if JFK had been hit by two
separate bullets in the back and neck (as nearly all CTers believe did
occur, with both missiles miraculously disappearing off the Mortal Coil
before they could be entered into the official record by any
non-plotters, assuming that CTers believe there WERE any "non-plotters"
actually handling any of the evidence on 11/22) -- what caused these
two bullets to suddenly stop completely inside JFK's upper back and
neck?
9.) If the shot that struck President Kennedy in the head had
originated from the front, then why does the official autopsy report
definitively state that JFK was shot just TWO times, both times from
"behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased"? .... Do CTers
TRULY believe that ALL THREE autopsy doctors were "in" on a cover-up to
hide the true nature of Kennedy's wounds? All three of 'em??? Is that
really a reasonable assumption to make? And it must have been an
all-encompassing doctor cover-up, because Finck and Boswell signed that
report too (in addition to Humes). Again -- a reasonable assumption?
10.) Why on this Earth would any band of professional assassins (bent
on Oswald taking the lone fall) have even CONSIDERED utilizing multiple
rifles to kill their one target on 11/22? .... Doesn't this seem the
slightest bit nutty to any CTer who believes that Oswald was, indeed,
"set up" well prior to 11/22 (via faked backyard photos, or "Oswald
Doubles" in Mexico, etc., etc.)? And if it doesn't seem just a little
nutty, why not? Because such a crazy "Multi-Gunmen, Lone-Patsy" plot is
just screwy from top to bottom, and it would be quite obvious to even
Helen Keller as to why this is so.
11.) If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot and kill John F. Kennedy and
J.D. Tippit on November 22nd, 1963 --- WHO THE HELL DID KILL THESE TWO
MEN? And where did the patsy-organizing conspirators get ahold of the
one (or even two) perfect-looking "Oswald look-alikes" to take the
patsy's place in both DP and on 10th Street on 11/22? Or are all of the
witnesses who positively IDed Oswald as the one and only killer of
Tippit all lying conspirators themselves?
lazu...@webtv.net
will find 2 captain's John Stover & a Capt. Osborne that yes a full
bullet was found at Bethesda( apparently when Sibert & O'Neill were out
of the room)-I believe X-Ray Tech Custer also said this in ITEOH-it's
been awhile. Anyway, I know you will just say they all hallucinated the
same thing.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>IF JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY MULTIPLE SHOOTERS AND AS A RESULT OF
>A CONSPIRACY, THEN.........
>
>1.) Why does every scrap of ballistics evidence in the record of both
>the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders lead straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's
>weaponry?
It doesn't. The tests done by the WC, for example, show that a shot from the
6th floor, entering near the EOP, would exit the face.
This is rather clear to anyone who gives it more than a moment's thought - so
the WC didn't really need a ballistics expert to prove it.
And, of course, with no chain of possession on much of this "evidence", it
really doesn't mean very much.
>There's not a bullet, a bullet fragment, or a bullet shell
>(or a gun) surrounding either murder that doesn't spell "Oswald's
>Guns".
Again, untrue. There's still several "bullet fragments" that are in the autopsy
X-ray's that have never been removed or identified.
And, of course, since the Tippit killers' shells were identified as coming from
an automatic, rather than a revolver, they can't be matched to LHO's pistol
either.
>Why? And if Oswald was a mere "patsy" and his guns weren't
>actually used at all on 11/22 (as many conspiracists believe is the
>case), then an even bigger question is...HOW was this pulled off so
>nicely (times 2 murder scenes)?
Quite simply. When the investigators are determined to prove something... if
they are reasonably intelligent, they can generally do so.
>(And: Using the excuse that a gob of
>stuff was "planted" and/or "faked", without a single bit of hard
>evidence to back up such allegations, is the pinnacle of CT
>desperation.)
It certainly would be the "pinnacle" of desperation, were it actually true.
Unfortunately for dishonest LNT'ers such as yourself, the items in evidence that
I've thus far identified as altered, planted, or forged - actually have evidence
to support it.
This is why you continually snip and run, rather than respond. For there's
really nothing that you *can* say.
>2.) Why is it that less than 5% of the total witnesses in DP heard
>gunshots coming from more than ONE DISTINCT GENERAL LOCATION (front vs.
>rear) on 11/22?
Because less than 5% were either asked, and *also* occupied a location that
would allow them to recognize the multiple directions of fire.
The question that *should* be occupying your mind, is how to *explain* those
that heard shots from more than one location.
Or how to explain that virtually everyone pointed to just two locations.
> .... Witness accounts are not always very reliable,
>granted.
Nope. Taint "granted" at all.
>But 99 out of 104 earwitnesses (via John McAdams' poll
>results) hearing shots from only ONE single locality (rather than two
>or more) if there HAD, in fact, been two or more shooters (both front
>and rear) is a mighty strange occurrence....not to mention mighty
>convenient for any and all of the "real killers" located throughout the
>Plaza. Could some have been mistaken? Sure. But 99 of 104? What are the
>odds of that large a % NOT hearing what REALLY occurred on 11/22 (i.e.,
>shots coming from at LEAST three differing locations in DP, via ANY
>anti-SBT theory a CTer chooses to put in the place of the SBT)?
It's interesting to note that even as soon as Saturday, the FBI was slanting the
questioning of eyewitnesses - telling one of them, for example, (as best as I
can recall it) that if he didn't hear three shots from the TSBD, he didn't hear
the assassination.
The well documented FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses can't be explained in terms
of the WC's theory.
So LNT'ers have to deny, duck, and run...
>3.) If a total of up to 6 or 8 shots were fired in DP (or however many
>above the number "3"), then please explain how it was that 100% of the
>NEWSMEN, REPORTERS, AND OTHER MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES who were in the
>motorcade and told of their experience just a matter of minutes after
>the event said they each heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS fired?
Amazing! Can you explain why 100% of Signal Supervisors for the Union Terminal
Railroad stated that there were four shots... and that they came from *two*
locations?
Interestingly, most of the "newsmen, reporters, and other media representatives
who were in the motorcade" were not even on Elm street at the time of the
assassination.
It would be of more interest to hear a tally of military, police, and other
earwitnesses who can be presumed to have *experience* with shooting. Would you
care to offer such?
> .... Did the
>"real killers" just get lucky (again) with respect to this important
>information that was going out Live to the world, starting with
>Merriman Smith's initial UPI newswire bulletin at 12:34 PM?
Nope. It really didn't matter how many shots were required. It was only
important to keep the number down to a reasonable number that the alleged
assassin could have fired in the time frame that they could convince people
existed.
>Did the
>"real killers" (numbering up to 4 or 5 by some CTer accounts) just get
>extremely lucky that no more than THREE shots exactly, the maximum
>number it was later determined that Oswald could have fired from his
>gun in the given timeframe and the number of shots matching the number
>of spent rifle shells in the SN, were heard by Smith, as well as by Jay
>Watson, Robert MacNeil, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Jack Bell....all
>of whom were in a direct position to almost-instantly report their
>"Three-Shot" account to America?
When you try working "backwards", you get these sort of silly statements.
The real problem was that the closest earwitnesses to the TSBD asserted that
only *two* shots had been fired... and initially, only *two* empty cartridges
were discovered.
Ironed over quite neatly, for Blacks in Texas at that time could be 'convinced'
of whatever the police wanted from them.
> .... Man, those "real" assassins must
>have had some magical powers that day indeed, as they were somehow able
>to mask all of those "other" shots and get the overall assassination
>fusillade to funnel down to JUST THREE audible gunblasts to be
>conveniently heard by the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza,
>including (as far as I am aware) 100% of the media who reported the
>event minutes later via newswires, TV, and radio.
"Fusillade" indeed. Far too many people heard exactly that... and it was the
undoing of the WCR. It was really a shame that they were stuck with using a
rifle that could be traced to the patsy.
One that really couldn't be fired all that quickly.
>4.) If the SBT is a bunch of hooey
Most people think so...
> -- How is it even remotely possible
>that THREE separate shots from THREE distinctly-different gunmen are
>going to end up causing the wounds on the two victims in JFK's car that
>were inflicted, so that this wound "pattern" on two men is SO DAMN
>CLOSE to a "SBT-like wound pattern" that the SBT can even be remotely
>considered by ANYBODY after the assassination?
How silly! The pattern *didn't* look like one bullet going through two
bodies... the WC was forced to make it so appear. You're stuck with a
zig-zagging bullet.
> .... Plus: Where are
>these bullets that "replace" the SBT's official bullet in the record
>(CE399)?
Collected by various agents, and probably deposited in a file cabinet in
Hoover's office.
>Again, assuming that all three of these mystery missiles just
>"vanished", "got lost", or were "swept under the carpet" by unknown
>conspirators is an CT exercise that is wrought with disingenuousness
>and a lack of verifiable proof of any kind whatsoever.
Other than, of course, a photograph showing one of these bullets being dug out
of the grass.
And eyewitness accounts...
>5.) Why does Lee Harvey Oswald act like a very guilty man after 12:30
>PM on 11/22/63 (if he never killed anybody that day in Dallas)? (Segues
>into #6 below.....)
He doesn't. Nor can you show any such "guilty actions" by LHO.
>6.) If Lee Oswald was nothing but an innocent "patsy", how did the
>clever "patsy plotters" get Oswald, their one and only dupe, to do all
>of the following things on 11/22/63:
>
>a.) How did the plotters get Oswald to show up for work at all on the
>morning of 11/22?
Wasn't difficult. I'd guesstimate that in excess of 95% of people who are
*supposed* to show up for work on a given day actually do so.
Nor did it matter... they had multiple patsies to work with, were they half
intelligent. Frazier was almost certainly one of them.
>b.) How did they guarantee that Oswald would stay at work (and INSIDE
>THE BUILDING) until after JFK was shot at 12:30 PM?
Again, not particularly hard to do. Most people that work a normal 8 hour shift
actually do so.
I really do hope your questions become more difficult to answer than these!
>c.) How did these miracle plotters manage to arrange for Patsy Oswald
>to stay completely out of sight of ANY eyewitnesses at precisely 12:30
>PM, the crucial time when the plotters couldn't afford to have their
>"Patsy" spotted anywhere but on the 6th Floor (with a gun) taking shots
>at President Kennedy?
Wouldn't have mattered. The FBI was there to re-write history if needed - as
they did with any number of eyewitness accounts.
When you're the one who does the "investigation", you can "find" whatever you
need.
>d.) How did the patsy-plotters know for a fact which TSBD book boxes
>Lee Oswald had touched on 11/22 (or 11/21), so that the bad guys could
>use those precise cartons (laden with Oswald's prints) within the
>Sniper's Nest on Friday?
Who says they did?
>Did the conspirators just got lucky that
>Oswald just happened to touch two of the boxes that were found deep
>inside the SN, including the rifle-rest carton?
Can you produce a chart of each box on the 6th floor, showing what percentage of
them had LHO's prints, and which ones didn't?
The testimony clearly shows that the 6th floor was one of his *normal* areas of
duty. It would be surprising if they couldn't find his prints.
>e.) How did the conspirators manage to arrange for Oswald to make a
>suspicious-looking and out-of-the-ordinary trip to Irving on 11/21?
Offered to buy his rifle. Interestingly, when arrested, LHO had an amount of
money on him that suggests this very scenario.
>And how did they get LHO to carry a bulky-looking package into work with
>him on 11/22?
I don't believe that the evidence supports this. But if he *did* bring the
rifle, don't you think he'd bring it to where he *could* sell it?
>(Was Oswald the most-cooperative Patsy in history...or
>just the dumbest?)
A traditional logical error. No-one in the TSDB knew, before 12:30pm, that a
rifle was going to be pivotal in history.
>f.) Why does Oswald leave the TSBD at approx. 12:33
Probably for the same reason that others left.
>(and later lie about why he left)?
Prove it's a lie.
>g.) Why does Oswald kill Officer J.D. Tippit (if he didn't kill JFK)?
He didn't.
>.... No CTer shall ever be able to reconcile the Tippit slaying into a
>believable and reasonable "Oswald's Innocent Of Killing JFK" scenario.
>Because if Oswald HADN'T just shot JFK, why would he START killing
>people less than an hour later on 10th Street? Why?
That's why most CT'ers who've actually spent any time with the evidence don't
believe that LHO was the killer of Tippit.
>h.) Assuming Oswald wasn't TOTALLY ignorant of the ENTIRE so-called
>"plot" that surrounded him, how in the world did the plotters get
>Oswald to keep his mouth shut for 45+ hours while in custody?
Perhaps because he was doing exactly as trained? Do you truly suppose that our
intelligence agents are trained to blurt out everything if they get arrested?
>Was Lee
>just being nice toward the people he might have suspected had just set
>him up for multiple murders? .... Or did Lee truly know absolutely
>NOTHING about any of the details (small or large) re. the assassination
>that has now been placed squarely on the shoulders of him and him alone
>in the hours after JFK and Tippit were shot to death?
Nah, he was probably involved in it in a peripherial way.
>And if the latter
>is true....what was in that package he took to work?
Curtain rods, most likely.
>And why does he have to lie about so much stuff after his arrest?
Did he? Can you produce the recording?
>7.) If JFK and JBC had actually been struck by several more bullets
>than just the two that the WC determined likely struck the victims,
>then why doesn't the Zapruder Film show more definitive "He Was Shot
>Right THERE!" moments within the famous 26-second motion picture?
The first official viewing of the film did find *exactly* that. See
http://www.jfkresearch.com/fetzer/fetzer8b.htm
>(At
>least one or two more such moments should be readily-noticeable on the
>film if some of the CTers are right, like Bob Groden. Or did ALL of
>these various "hits" occur while both victims were behind the sign for
>that whopping one second in real time?)
You presume that the extant Z-film that *you* view is real history.
That can't explain the testimony of those who viewed it early on, or those who
were in Dealey Plaza.
>8.) Instead of the SBT and Bullet CE399, if JFK had been hit by two
>separate bullets in the back and neck (as nearly all CTers believe did
>occur, with both missiles miraculously disappearing off the Mortal Coil
>before they could be entered into the official record by any
>non-plotters, assuming that CTers believe there WERE any "non-plotters"
>actually handling any of the evidence on 11/22) -- what caused these
>two bullets to suddenly stop completely inside JFK's upper back and
>neck?
The bullet coming from the front, striking JFK in the neck, ranged downward,
causing the respiratory problems that caused the Parkland medical staff to
insert chest tubes.
The bullet striking JFK's back, simply didn't go in very far - as it didn't
invade the pleural cavity.
>9.) If the shot that struck President Kennedy in the head had
>originated from the front, then why does the official autopsy report
>definitively state that JFK was shot just TWO times, both times from
>"behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased"?
Perhaps because they were ordered to so state?
>.... Do CTers
>TRULY believe that ALL THREE autopsy doctors were "in" on a cover-up to
>hide the true nature of Kennedy's wounds? All three of 'em??? Is that
>really a reasonable assumption to make?
Of course it is. They were military professionals. They followed orders.
>And it must have been an
>all-encompassing doctor cover-up, because Finck and Boswell signed that
>report too (in addition to Humes). Again -- a reasonable assumption?
Yep. All three of them *were* military. They had their orders.
In fact, it wasn't too long ago that the traditional LNT'er stance was that no
orders were issued in the autopsy room. I suspect that not even *you*,
Davey-boy, would like to try defending that now...
>10.) Why on this Earth would any band of professional assassins (bent
>on Oswald taking the lone fall) have even CONSIDERED utilizing multiple
>rifles to kill their one target on 11/22?
To ensure success?
>.... Doesn't this seem the
>slightest bit nutty to any CTer who believes that Oswald was, indeed,
>"set up" well prior to 11/22 (via faked backyard photos, or "Oswald
>Doubles" in Mexico, etc., etc.)?
Why? The "investigation" was going to be performed by those prepared to find
what was needed to find.
>And if it doesn't seem just a little
>nutty, why not? Because such a crazy "Multi-Gunmen, Lone-Patsy" plot is
>just screwy from top to bottom, and it would be quite obvious to even
>Helen Keller as to why this is so.
And yet, you can't seem to be able to defend your assertions when they are
refuted on this newsgroup.
It's 'snip and duck, snip and duck, run away...' all the time.
>11.) If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot and kill John F. Kennedy and
>J.D. Tippit on November 22nd, 1963 --- WHO THE HELL DID KILL THESE TWO
>MEN?
The hired assassins, of course. At least one of them was Cuban, no doubt.
>And where did the patsy-organizing conspirators get ahold of the
>one (or even two) perfect-looking "Oswald look-alikes" to take the
>patsy's place in both DP
They didn't. No-one who claimed to have seen the assassin in the SN was willing
to identify LHO as the one. Until, of course, they'd been pressured into it.
>and on 10th Street on 11/22?
The closest eyewitness refused to identify LHO. He was later pressured into
doing so. And a number of the descriptions fail to fit LHO.
>Or are all of the
>witnesses who positively IDed Oswald as the one and only killer of
>Tippit all lying conspirators themselves?
I do wish you could do better than this.
But, knowing you, Davey-boy - you'll run in the opposite direction, and snip
like crazy.
Coward, aren't you?
David VP
>> "How silly! The pattern *didn't* look like one bullet going through two bodies... the WC was forced to make it so appear. You're stuck with a zig-zagging bullet."
And, naturally, Dale K. Myers is a dirty, rotten bastard...with nothing
on his mind other than putting forth the rotten lies of the WC &
SBT....even though when he began his computer animation project he was
a CTer himself. Right, Ben?
Anyway ..... Nice job, Ben. You didn't disappoint. I was expecting this
type of kook-ster response re. the nearly-perfect (if not perfect)
alignment of the three bullet holes which CT-kooks say were actually
caused by not only three separate bullets, but by three separate gunmen
to boot.
Ben, you'd be better off trying a Mark Fuhrman-like SBT dodge, and
making believe the bullet somehow bounced off of something wholly
unknown after entering JFK's back (kind of like skipping rocks off of a
pond I guess...even though there's no water in JFK's pond; so how it
managed this upward tilt upon exiting Kennedy's neck, only Mark F.
seems to know).
But at least Fuhrman's craziness is only one-third as crazy as a
CT-Kook's anti-SBT version of 3 bullets and 3 assassins responsible for
the SBT wounds. And maybe even upped to 4 bullets, per Bobby Groden,
who likes to say (approx. every other Tuesday I think) that Connally
was possibly/probably hit with two different missiles....with both of
those bullets getting "lost" too (natch).
>> "You're stuck with a zig-zagging bullet."
And you, Mr. CT, via this silly "zig-zagging" remark, I'm afraid are
stuck with being a CT-kook (probably for life). Or at least until May
2007.
David VP
USEABLE ALIBI FOR 12:30 PM (CST) ON 11/22/63 A.D., A CT-NUTHATCH/KOOK
NAMED BENJAMIN BELLOWED THIS IDIOTIC HUNK OF GOOFINESS (APPARENTLY WITH
A STRAIGHT FACE TOO)........
>> "Wouldn't have mattered. The FBI was there to re-write history if needed - as they did with any number of eyewitness accounts."
And if Lee Oswald had wandered outside and gotten himself photographed
and filmed by, say, Phil Willis, Abraham Zapruder, Tina Towner, Wilma
Bond, and Dave Wiegman --- just exactly how was the FBI going to
"re-write history" then?
Of course, many CT nuthatches still DO, indeed, think Oswald WAS
photographed at exactly 12:30 PM....by Ike Altgens.
Was the FBI prepared to delete Oswald's image out of every potential
film and photo he appeared in after he wandered outside....even though
(per the can't-miss plan of these ace conspirators) Oswald was needed
on the 6th Floor at 12:30?
CTers do realize how stupid such a "We'll Just Let Oswald Wander Around
Aimlessly At Twelve-Thirty" Patsy plot sounds when examined with just
an ounce of common sense...don't they?
I wonder.
But....never let common sense get in the way of a good after-the-fact
hunk of CT story-telling. That's always been a kook's motto. Why change
now, right?
Ben Holmes
Once again, the coward can't support his *own* words. Davey-boy snipped the
majority of the post.
Looks like Davey-boy has had all his arguments refuted beyond his ability to
respond yet again.
In article <1149480922.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>RE. THE SBT, BEN-KOOK WROTE.......
>
>> How silly! The pattern *didn't* look like one bullet going through two
>> bodies... the WC was forced to make it so appear. You're stuck with a
>> zig-zagging bullet."
>
>And, naturally, Dale K. Myers is a dirty, rotten bastard...with nothing
>on his mind other than putting forth the rotten lies of the WC &
>SBT....even though when he began his computer animation project he was
>a CTer himself. Right, Ben?
I've paid no attention to Dale Myers whatsoever. I've not seen his work, and to
be honest, wouldn't be interested in it anyway.
He makes a very fundamental error, so his work is meaningless.
Now, why not try to explain the zig-zagging bullet? You are surely quite aware
that the pattern of injuries did *NOT* force authorities to develop the SBT...
it was Tague's injury.
Rather embarrassing, isn't it?
>Anyway ..... Nice job, Ben. You didn't disappoint. I was expecting this
>type of kook-ster response re. the nearly-perfect (if not perfect)
>alignment of the three bullet holes which CT-kooks say were actually
>caused by not only three separate bullets, but by three separate gunmen
>to boot.
Actually, that's the initial testimony by Dr. Shaw, as I recall. That Connally
was hit by as many as 3 bullets.
And, of course, the NPIC asserted that there were 6 to 8 shots from *three*
directions in the original Z-film.
>Ben, you'd be better off trying a Mark Fuhrman-like SBT dodge, and
>making believe the bullet somehow bounced off of something wholly
>unknown after entering JFK's back (kind of like skipping rocks off of a
>pond I guess...even though there's no water in JFK's pond; so how it
>managed this upward tilt upon exiting Kennedy's neck, only Mark F.
>seems to know).
I've no clue what Fuhrman believes... but considering that the back wound was
lower than the entry wound in the neck - and the FACT that transit was a
speculation made after the autopsy by those who were embarrassed at not seeing,
or more likely, being ordered not to see the neck wound; you certainly would
have an upward trajectory.
>But at least Fuhrman's craziness is only one-third as crazy as a
>CT-Kook's anti-SBT version of 3 bullets and 3 assassins responsible for
>the SBT wounds. And maybe even upped to 4 bullets, per Bobby Groden,
>who likes to say (approx. every other Tuesday I think) that Connally
>was possibly/probably hit with two different missiles....with both of
>those bullets getting "lost" too (natch).
The extant Z-film, even altered as it is, supports that Connally was hit on at
least two separate occasions.
>> You're stuck with a zig-zagging bullet.
>
>And you, Mr. CT, via this silly "zig-zagging" remark, I'm afraid are
>stuck with being a CT-kook (probably for life). Or at least until May
>2007.
Is that the latest prediction of when Bugliosi will actually publish a book?
1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
location of the head specified by the autopsy report, the bullet invariably
exited the forehead or face of the target – can you explain why JFK’s face was
virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the
head, when the autopsy report clearly states: “1. There is a large irregular
defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region
there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.”?
4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the
source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot
from the left?
5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,
changed to revolver?
6. Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder (James Chaney), who just
coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned
by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
7. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? Why was it
being washed within minutes of the assassination?
8. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?
9. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison trial,
and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck was
testifying to?
10. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker’s time of arrival back so far,
and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
this needed?
11. Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are
still denied by most LNT'ers today?
12. Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse
their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC refused to allow him to testify, and
eliminated any reference to his opinions in the WCR.)
13. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example… or Tomlinson?
14. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on
the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the
autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running
away from this topic?
15. How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been
conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?
16. Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
17. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and
completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes
were certainly within reach?
18. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the
government had control of them...
19. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they
actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?
20. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed
Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid
reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you
provide it?
21. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
22. Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera
owned by LHO?
23. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
government investigators?
24. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical
testimony... why??
25. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and
"photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Or can you point to these "theories" being
used in any prior legal case...
26. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
extant Z-film?
27. Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo,
yet we can't see it in the Z-film?
28. Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?
29. Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report
stated that the wound extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and
scalp... this simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.)
30. Why did you previously assert that professional hit men work alone – when
it’s a known fact that military snipers (certainly “professional” in any sense
of the word), *do* work in pairs?
31. Why did the WC ignore the previous assassination attempts on JFK’s life in
Chicago and Tampa?
32. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified fingerprint found in the
Sniper’s Nest?
33. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference with Dr. Perry?
We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of the conference, and
they refused to do so... why?
34. From the Jan 27th Executive Session:
***************************************
Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the
wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the
bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much
more than we have at the present time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a
fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation other
shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now,
since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back,
that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the
backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet
came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet,
according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that
particular bullet, and go through.
*****************************************
"Below the shoulder blades?"
"probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?"
Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy report that would
support these statements?
Was Spector simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a
mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said?
35. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it came to the
assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the Muchmore
film being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film reportedly
returning in a different condition from when it was taken from him?
Well... this'll do it for now. I'm sure I've missed a number of great
questions... Robert, for example, likes to ask a rather simple one that no-one
seems to be able to actually answer. But these should keep you busy for quite
some time... particularly if you actually answer them. But I won't hold my
breath.
Davey-boy, you're too much of a coward to actually *answer* this post without
snipping.
David VP
Oh...isn't that special. So, this must mean that Dale's naturally got
it all wrong with his pro-SBT stance...right? It's better for you to
just ignore the doability and plausibility of the SBT, rather than look
at Myers' work. Good thinking.
>> "You are surely quite aware that the pattern of injuries did *NOT* force authorities to develop the SBT...it was Tague's injury."
Nonsense. Go read Page #117 of the Warren Report. On that page, the WC
expressly states its belief that Tague's injury might very well have
been caused by a fragment from the bullet that hit JFK in the head.
Therefore, the WC wasn't boxing themselves in to NEEDING the SBT at all
costs. You must think the WC added in those comments re. Tague on Pg.
117 to cover their asses, right?
But, unlike CTers, the WC (when everything was examined and taken into
account) utilized some CS&L and realized that JFK & JBC were aligned
one in front of the other....plus no bullets left in Kennedy's
neck/back....plus the autopsy report which stated a bullet did exit
JFK's neck....plus Robert Frazier's testimony re. the plausibility of
the SBT and the victims' alignment in the vehicle (and the lack of
bullets and bullet damage to the limo's interior).
All of that added up to one easily-determinable conclusion -- A single
bullet almost certainly must have passed through both Kennedy &
Connally. And if the FBI had released its report after a nine-plus
month investigation (instead of just a rushed 2-week report), they too
would have concluded just what the WC concluded. Why? Because it's the
ONLY logical scenario that fits the evidence in this case.
>> "The back wound was lower than the entry wound in the neck..."
An outright falsehood....and everybody knows it. Anybody can see (and
test for themselves) the alignment of the back wound in relation to the
throat wound. The throat (exit) wound is positively lower than the back
(entry) wound.....without a sliver of a doubt.
But keep believing otherwise. It's better for your CT image. (Until May
2007 anyway.)
Ben Holmes
The coward snips and ducks again... how sad that he can't respond to the ENTIRE
post.
In article <1149485166.9...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> I've paid no attention to Dale Myers whatsoever. I've not seen his work...
>
>Oh...isn't that special. So, this must mean that Dale's naturally got
>it all wrong with his pro-SBT stance...right?
If he's pro-SBT, then yes, he's wrong.
>It's better for you to
>just ignore the doability and plausibility of the SBT, rather than look
>at Myers' work. Good thinking.
No, I look at the evidence... and the *EVIDENCE* is against the SBT. The
locations, the angles, the fact that according to the best medical evidence,
there was no transit, the fact that the best medical evidence is that the neck
wound is an entrance, not exit... etc.
>> You are surely quite aware that the pattern of injuries did *NOT*
>> force authorities to develop the SBT...it was Tague's injury.
>
>Nonsense.
It's not. It's merely historical truth. The WC was working on a 3 shots, 3
hits model until Tague was forced on them from the outside... it was clearly
their goal to simply ignore Tague.
>Go read Page #117 of the Warren Report. On that page, the WC
>expressly states its belief that Tague's injury might very well have
>been caused by a fragment from the bullet that hit JFK in the head.
It's a silly and unsupportable belief.
>Therefore, the WC wasn't boxing themselves in to NEEDING the SBT at all
>costs. You must think the WC added in those comments re. Tague on Pg.
>117 to cover their asses, right?
Yep. The WC, despite their implication that the SBT is only probable, *MUST*
have the SBT to allow only one assassin.
>But, unlike CTers, the WC (when everything was examined and taken into
>account) utilized some CS&L and realized that JFK & JBC were aligned
>one in front of the other....
Actually, no. It was *Spector*, not the WC. For many of the WC commissioners
never believed the SBT. Quite probably, should a poll be taken, many of the
staff didn't believe it either. They weren't stupid.
>plus no bullets left in Kennedy's
>neck/back....plus the autopsy report which stated a bullet did exit
>JFK's neck....plus Robert Frazier's testimony re. the plausibility of
>the SBT and the victims' alignment in the vehicle (and the lack of
>bullets and bullet damage to the limo's interior).
No bullet left in the back because it fell out. All of this SBT nonsense
depends on transit, and you can't prove transit. You can't even *presume*
transit, as the best medical evidence is that there WAS NONE! This probably
explains the missing photo showing the interior of the chest - it would have
shown a *lack* of damage consistent with a transiting bullet... and so, had to
disappear.
Tell us, Davey-boy, who had control of the photographs?
>All of that added up to one easily-determinable conclusion -- A single
>bullet almost certainly must have passed through both Kennedy &
>Connally.
An "easily-determinable" conclusion that wasn't determined for months... and
never subscribed to by the FBI or SS.
>And if the FBI had released its report after a nine-plus
>month investigation (instead of just a rushed 2-week report), they too
>would have concluded just what the WC concluded. Why? Because it's the
>ONLY logical scenario that fits the evidence in this case.
No, it isn't. It fits the coverup.
You see, you can't refute the coverup ... this is why you refuse to respond to
the simple questions that reveal it.
Coward, aren't you?
>> The back wound was lower than the entry wound in the neck...
>
>An outright falsehood....and everybody knows it.
The death certificate doesn't know it.
The clothes don't know it.
The eyewitnesses don't know it.
And you're too gutless to respond.
>Anybody can see (and
>test for themselves) the alignment of the back wound in relation to the
>throat wound. The throat (exit) wound is positively lower than the back
>(entry) wound.....without a sliver of a doubt.
That isn't what the HSCA said. They didn't know it either.
>But keep believing otherwise. It's better for your CT image. (Until May
>2007 anyway.)
You never did answer the question... is May 2007 the latest prediction of when
Bugliosi will release his book?
Robert Harris
>In article <1149462187....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>says...
>>
>>IF JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY MULTIPLE SHOOTERS AND AS A RESULT OF
>>A CONSPIRACY, THEN.........
>>
>>1.) Why does every scrap of ballistics evidence in the record of both
>>the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders lead straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>weaponry?
>
>It doesn't. The tests done by the WC, for example, show that a shot from the
>6th floor, entering near the EOP, would exit the face.
This is an issue that David distort's beyond any semblance of reality.
In fact, he cannot account for the source of the first shot, which
apparently, hit the pavement around Z150. Neither can he account for
the shot that struck Main st and resulted in Tague's minor wound.
Our best evidence suggests that CE-399 was not the same bullet that
some of us believe, passed through both victims at Z223. So, that one
is up in the air too.
And if David actually, gave a damn about any of this, I would be glad
to show him that the trajectory for a SBT shot at 223, is infinitely
better from the third floor of the Daltex, where Braden was
discovered, than it is from the alleged snipers nest.
In fact, the ONLY bullet that can plausibly be linked to the alleged
murder weapon is the one at 312. And even that, only suggests that MC
ammunition was used - not necessarily, the alleged murder weapon.
So, David's grand total of shots that are linked to Oswald beyond
reasonable doubt, is a flat ZERO.
Of course, that won't stop him from repeating this bogus claim over
and over again.
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
> RE. THE SBT, BEN-KOOK WROTE.......
>
>>> "How silly! The pattern *didn't* look like one bullet going through two bodies... the WC was forced to make it so appear. You're stuck with a zig-zagging bullet."
>
> And, naturally, Dale K. Myers is a dirty, rotten bastard...with nothing
> on his mind other than putting forth the rotten lies of the WC &
> SBT....even though when he began his computer animation project he was
> a CTer himself. Right, Ben?
Nah, never. Many WC defenders have tried to trick us by claiming that
they were originally conspiracy believers, but they never produce any
messages or articles they wrote at the time arguing conspiracy. They are
simply lying. Pretending. Argument by Authority.
>
> Anyway ..... Nice job, Ben. You didn't disappoint. I was expecting this
> type of kook-ster response re. the nearly-perfect (if not perfect)
> alignment of the three bullet holes which CT-kooks say were actually
> caused by not only three separate bullets, but by three separate gunmen
> to boot.
Which bullet holes and who said three gunmen caused each hole?
>
> Ben, you'd be better off trying a Mark Fuhrman-like SBT dodge, and
> making believe the bullet somehow bounced off of something wholly
> unknown after entering JFK's back (kind of like skipping rocks off of a
> pond I guess...even though there's no water in JFK's pond; so how it
> managed this upward tilt upon exiting Kennedy's neck, only Mark F.
> seems to know).
>
Hit the vertebra.
> But at least Fuhrman's craziness is only one-third as crazy as a
> CT-Kook's anti-SBT version of 3 bullets and 3 assassins responsible for
> the SBT wounds. And maybe even upped to 4 bullets, per Bobby Groden,
Who has a theory of 3 assassins causing the SBT wounds? Name please.
Book? Page number?
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1149462187....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>> IF JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY MULTIPLE SHOOTERS AND AS A RESULT OF
>> A CONSPIRACY, THEN.........
>>
>> 1.) Why does every scrap of ballistics evidence in the record of both
>> the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders lead straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's
>> weaponry?
>
> It doesn't. The tests done by the WC, for example, show that a shot from the
> 6th floor, entering near the EOP, would exit the face.
>
Which tests are you thinking about? Of course you probably don't want to
admit that those tests were flawed.
Documentation please that less than 5% were asked and occupied a
privileged position. Please mark on a map where you think that position was.
> The question that *should* be occupying your mind, is how to *explain* those
> that heard shots from more than one location.
>
> Or how to explain that virtually everyone pointed to just two locations.
>
>
>> .... Witness accounts are not always very reliable,
>> granted.
>
>
> Nope. Taint "granted" at all.
>
>
>> But 99 out of 104 earwitnesses (via John McAdams' poll
>> results) hearing shots from only ONE single locality (rather than two
>> or more) if there HAD, in fact, been two or more shooters (both front
>> and rear) is a mighty strange occurrence....not to mention mighty
>> convenient for any and all of the "real killers" located throughout the
>> Plaza. Could some have been mistaken? Sure. But 99 of 104? What are the
>> odds of that large a % NOT hearing what REALLY occurred on 11/22 (i.e.,
>> shots coming from at LEAST three differing locations in DP, via ANY
>> anti-SBT theory a CTer chooses to put in the place of the SBT)?
>
>
> It's interesting to note that even as soon as Saturday, the FBI was slanting the
> questioning of eyewitnesses - telling one of them, for example, (as best as I
> can recall it) that if he didn't hear three shots from the TSBD, he didn't hear
> the assassination.
>
> The well documented FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses can't be explained in terms
> of the WC's theory.
>
And why shouldn't the FBI be intimidating eyewitnesses, even before the
WC existed? They did not want people to think it was a conspiracy.
> So LNT'ers have to deny, duck, and run...
>
>
>> 3.) If a total of up to 6 or 8 shots were fired in DP (or however many
>> above the number "3"), then please explain how it was that 100% of the
>> NEWSMEN, REPORTERS, AND OTHER MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES who were in the
>> motorcade and told of their experience just a matter of minutes after
>> the event said they each heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS fired?
>
> Amazing! Can you explain why 100% of Signal Supervisors for the Union Terminal
> Railroad stated that there were four shots... and that they came from *two*
> locations?
>
> Interestingly, most of the "newsmen, reporters, and other media representatives
> who were in the motorcade" were not even on Elm street at the time of the
> assassination.
>
Some were, including Mary Woodward who reported that the shots came from
behind her, meaning the grassy knoll, then the newspaper cut her story.
> It would be of more interest to hear a tally of military, police, and other
> earwitnesses who can be presumed to have *experience* with shooting. Would you
> care to offer such?
>
>
>> .... Did the
>> "real killers" just get lucky (again) with respect to this important
>> information that was going out Live to the world, starting with
>> Merriman Smith's initial UPI newswire bulletin at 12:34 PM?
>
>
> Nope. It really didn't matter how many shots were required. It was only
> important to keep the number down to a reasonable number that the alleged
> assassin could have fired in the time frame that they could convince people
> existed.
>
>
>> Did the
>> "real killers" (numbering up to 4 or 5 by some CTer accounts) just get
>> extremely lucky that no more than THREE shots exactly, the maximum
>> number it was later determined that Oswald could have fired from his
>> gun in the given timeframe and the number of shots matching the number
>> of spent rifle shells in the SN, were heard by Smith, as well as by Jay
>> Watson, Robert MacNeil, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Jack Bell....all
>> of whom were in a direct position to almost-instantly report their
>> "Three-Shot" account to America?
>
>
> When you try working "backwards", you get these sort of silly statements.
>
> The real problem was that the closest earwitnesses to the TSBD asserted that
> only *two* shots had been fired... and initially, only *two* empty cartridges
> were discovered.
>
Not true. Three empty cartridges were photographed and recovered.
Nothing was dug out of the grass. No one was digging in Dealey Plaza.
> And eyewitness accounts...
>
>
>> 5.) Why does Lee Harvey Oswald act like a very guilty man after 12:30
>> PM on 11/22/63 (if he never killed anybody that day in Dallas)? (Segues
>> into #6 below.....)
>
>
> He doesn't. Nor can you show any such "guilty actions" by LHO.
>
>
>> 6.) If Lee Oswald was nothing but an innocent "patsy", how did the
>> clever "patsy plotters" get Oswald, their one and only dupe, to do all
>> of the following things on 11/22/63:
>>
>> a.) How did the plotters get Oswald to show up for work at all on the
>> morning of 11/22?
>
>
> Wasn't difficult. I'd guesstimate that in excess of 95% of people who are
> *supposed* to show up for work on a given day actually do so.
>
> Nor did it matter... they had multiple patsies to work with, were they half
> intelligent. Frazier was almost certainly one of them.
>
Joe Molina?
>
>> b.) How did they guarantee that Oswald would stay at work (and INSIDE
>> THE BUILDING) until after JFK was shot at 12:30 PM?
>
>
> Again, not particularly hard to do. Most people that work a normal 8 hour shift
> actually do so.
>
His point is that many TSBD workers went outside to see the motorcade.
Why not Oswald also?
No, enough to pay a week's rent and buy a few groceries.
Oswald didn't cook in his rooming house room, did he?
>
>> And how did they get LHO to carry a bulky-looking package into work with
>> him on 11/22?
>
> I don't believe that the evidence supports this. But if he *did* bring the
> rifle, don't you think he'd bring it to where he *could* sell it?
>
>
>> (Was Oswald the most-cooperative Patsy in history...or
>> just the dumbest?)
>
>
> A traditional logical error. No-one in the TSDB knew, before 12:30pm, that a
> rifle was going to be pivotal in history.
>
>
>> f.) Why does Oswald leave the TSBD at approx. 12:33
>
>
> Probably for the same reason that others left.
>
>
>> (and later lie about why he left)?
>
>
> Prove it's a lie.
>
>
>> g.) Why does Oswald kill Officer J.D. Tippit (if he didn't kill JFK)?
>
>
> He didn't.
>
He did. He panicked.
>
>> .... No CTer shall ever be able to reconcile the Tippit slaying into a
>> believable and reasonable "Oswald's Innocent Of Killing JFK" scenario.
>> Because if Oswald HADN'T just shot JFK, why would he START killing
>> people less than an hour later on 10th Street? Why?
>
>
> That's why most CT'ers who've actually spent any time with the evidence don't
> believe that LHO was the killer of Tippit.
>
That's why most conspiracy believers acknowledge that Oswald killed Tippit.
Show me the angle and the shooter for your throat entrance.
> The bullet striking JFK's back, simply didn't go in very far - as it didn't
> invade the pleural cavity.
>
Nonsense.
Anthony Marsh
I don't think that is when they supposedly found a full bullet. That was
supposed to be when they removed the body from the casket and both FBI
agents were there taking notes.
I believe Hoover made the mistake of saying that it rolled out of the head.
David VP
Big ol' LOL here!
Obviously, Mr. Marsh has never seen the excellent 1993 PBS-TV
documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" .... Because within that
broadcast, Dale Myers appears on camera as an obvious "CTer". He speaks
specifically in that program of his own belief that Oswald could not
possibly have travelled the 0.9-mile distance from his roominghouse at
1026 N. Beckley Avenue to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder near the
corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in the allotted amount of time
required for LHO to "meet" Tippit (approx. 13-15 minutes).
Myers goes on to explain to the PBS audience of his (Myers') belief
that Oswald must have been "driven" to 10th & Patton by an accomplice,
instead of hoofing it on his own.
Now, that PBS appearance in 1993 wasn't talking about the JFK killing
specifically (or the SBT)....but it's obvious that Mr. Myers was NOT in
the "LN" camp as of the time that program aired....and he's ON CAMERA
saying so.
So much for Dale's "pretending". Or does Tony Marsh think that Dale
Myers WAS only "pretending" to be in the CT camp when he went on camera
and talked of how Oswald must have surely had an accomplice to drive
him to 10th Street?
If THAT was a "ruse" on Mr. Myers part...he ought to get some credit
(or some award) for "thinking in advance".
>> "Who has a theory of 3 assassins causing the SBT wounds? Name please. Book?"
There is none. And that's part of the overall CT problem re. their
anti-SBT stance (quite obviously). No CTer ever seems to want to
explain in bullet-by-bullet detail what "REALLY DID HAPPEN", in lieu of
the SBT.
Most CTers maintain the blanket belief of "The SBT Is Impossible" and
just leave it laying right there....with no substitute in its place.
Funny, isn't it? I always thought the two men WERE wounded in SOME
fashion by bullets on 11/22/63. Guess not though. Must have been a
dream (kind of like "Bobby In The Shower" or something.)
But it doesn't matter at all if a specific person has written a
specific "3 Gunmen" anti-SBT theory --- because whether it's been given
utterance by an author or not, a THREE-GUNMEN anti-SBT theory is
REQUIRED of conspiracists if the SBT is wrong. (Mark Fuhrman's wild LN
guesses notwithstanding.) .....
Because most CTers have the JFK throat wound as an ENTRY hole. (Gunman
#1.)
Then there's JFK's back wound. (Gunman #2.)
Then there's JBC's back wound (being sustained at a time, per virtually
every CTer I've ever encountered, which prohibits Gunman #2 from also
firing this shot into JBC). (Gunman #3.)
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149462187....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>> IF JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY MULTIPLE SHOOTERS AND AS A RESULT OF
>>> A CONSPIRACY, THEN.........
>>>
>>> 1.) Why does every scrap of ballistics evidence in the record of both
>>> the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders lead straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's
>>> weaponry?
>>
>> It doesn't. The tests done by the WC, for example, show that a shot from the
>> 6th floor, entering near the EOP, would exit the face.
>>
>
>Which tests are you thinking about? Of course you probably don't want to
>admit that those tests were flawed.
Ballistics tests done for the WC. Nor can you show how they are flawed, so your
assertion is just silly.
As I state just below, this is quite clear to anyone who takes a moment to think
it through.
Nope. Play with your own strawman...
And you're a liar. But we already knew that, didn't we?
Michael Griffith puts it better than me:
* Apparently only two shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Book
Depository Building. An original FBI evidence sheet and a Dallas police property
clerk's invoice both record the receipt of two shells and one live missile from
the the sniper's nest. Recently, an FBI evidence envelope was discovered that
contained the two shells and the live round. The envelope also contained photos,
and these photos show two shells and a live bullet. Also, an 11/22/63 DPD Crime
Scene Section document has surfaced that likewise says only two shells were
found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest. This evidence strongly suggests that
either the police initially were only going to admit to finding two shells or,
somewhat less likely, that only two shells were found to begin with. The third
shell, which only surfaced several days later, has a dent in it and could not
have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. (It's interesting to
note that originally Bonnie Ray Williams, who was standing next to the southeast
fifth-floor window, directly beneath the sixth-floor sniper's nest with only
thin floor boarding separating him from the sniper's nest, said he only heard
TWO shots. Howard Brennan, who was standing on the street below in a location
that was almost directly beneath the sixth-floor window, likewise only heard two
shots from that window. So if only two shots were fired from the sixth-floor
window, someone else must have fired the other shot or shots.)
I rather doubt if Tony will retract. But he's a liar, as most WCR apologists
end up being.
What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>> And eyewitness accounts...
>>
>>
>>> 5.) Why does Lee Harvey Oswald act like a very guilty man after 12:30
>>> PM on 11/22/63 (if he never killed anybody that day in Dallas)? (Segues
>>> into #6 below.....)
>>
>>
>> He doesn't. Nor can you show any such "guilty actions" by LHO.
>>
>>
>>> 6.) If Lee Oswald was nothing but an innocent "patsy", how did the
>>> clever "patsy plotters" get Oswald, their one and only dupe, to do all
>>> of the following things on 11/22/63:
>>>
>>> a.) How did the plotters get Oswald to show up for work at all on the
>>> morning of 11/22?
>>
>>
>> Wasn't difficult. I'd guesstimate that in excess of 95% of people who are
>> *supposed* to show up for work on a given day actually do so.
>>
>> Nor did it matter... they had multiple patsies to work with, were they half
>> intelligent. Frazier was almost certainly one of them.
>
>Joe Molina?
>
>>
>>> b.) How did they guarantee that Oswald would stay at work (and INSIDE
>>> THE BUILDING) until after JFK was shot at 12:30 PM?
>>
>>
>> Again, not particularly hard to do. Most people that work a normal 8
>> hour shift actually do so.
>
>His point is that many TSBD workers went outside to see the motorcade.
"How did they guarantee that Oswald would stay at work..." Illiterate, Tony?
>Why not Oswald also?
Wouldn't matter. When you control the investigation, you get to present what
you want to present.
We *KNOW* that eyewitnesses saw LHO down on the 1st & 2nd floor from about 11:50
onward, and if a *real* investigation had been performed, their might well be a
tremendous amount of further information available that places him beyond all
doubt.
Once again, Tony, you're a liar. Please tell lurkers here exactly how much
money he had on him when arrested... then tell lurkers here exactly how much he
allegedly paid for 'his' rifle.
But you won't... because it would reveal what a liar you are.
>enough to pay a week's rent and buy a few groceries.
>Oswald didn't cook in his rooming house room, did he?
>
>>
>>> And how did they get LHO to carry a bulky-looking package into work with
>>> him on 11/22?
>>
>> I don't believe that the evidence supports this. But if he *did* bring the
>> rifle, don't you think he'd bring it to where he *could* sell it?
>>
>>
>>> (Was Oswald the most-cooperative Patsy in history...or
>>> just the dumbest?)
>>
>>
>> A traditional logical error. No-one in the TSDB knew, before 12:30pm, that a
>> rifle was going to be pivotal in history.
>>
>>
>>> f.) Why does Oswald leave the TSBD at approx. 12:33
>>
>>
>> Probably for the same reason that others left.
>>
>>
>>> (and later lie about why he left)?
>>
>>
>> Prove it's a lie.
>>
>>
>>> g.) Why does Oswald kill Officer J.D. Tippit (if he didn't kill JFK)?
>>
>>
>> He didn't.
>>
>
>He did. He panicked.
Then all you need to do is present your very best evidence that he did. And
explain why so much of the evidence contradicts your (and the WCR's) theory.
>>> .... No CTer shall ever be able to reconcile the Tippit slaying into a
>>> believable and reasonable "Oswald's Innocent Of Killing JFK" scenario.
>>> Because if Oswald HADN'T just shot JFK, why would he START killing
>>> people less than an hour later on 10th Street? Why?
>>
>>
>> That's why most CT'ers who've actually spent any time with the evidence don't
>> believe that LHO was the killer of Tippit.
>
>That's why most conspiracy believers acknowledge that Oswald killed Tippit.
Liar, aren't you, Tony?
Don't need to. The *medical* evidence is for an entry wound. Learn to live
with it, Tony.
>> The bullet striking JFK's back, simply didn't go in very far - as it didn't
>> invade the pleural cavity.
>
>Nonsense.
Supported by eyewitness statements. Liar, aren't you Tony?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Many WC defenders have tried to trick us by claiming that they were
>> originally conspiracy believers, but they never produce any messages or
>> articles they wrote at the time arguing conspiracy. They are simply lying.
>> Pretending.
>
>Big ol' LOL here!
>
>Obviously, Mr. Marsh has never seen the excellent 1993 PBS-TV
>documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" .... Because within that
>broadcast, Dale Myers appears on camera as an obvious "CTer". He speaks
>specifically in that program of his own belief that Oswald could not
>possibly have travelled the 0.9-mile distance from his roominghouse at
>1026 N. Beckley Avenue to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder near the
>corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in the allotted amount of time
>required for LHO to "meet" Tippit (approx. 13-15 minutes).
>
>Myers goes on to explain to the PBS audience of his (Myers') belief
>that Oswald must have been "driven" to 10th & Patton by an accomplice,
>instead of hoofing it on his own.
Catching a ride would not make someone an "accomplice", and Dale Myers is
obviously looking at only one bit of contradictory evidence for Oswald being
involved in the Tippit killing.
This certainly would *NOT* qualify someone as a CT'er... You'll have to do a
lot better than this...
>Now, that PBS appearance in 1993 wasn't talking about the JFK killing
>specifically (or the SBT)....but it's obvious that Mr. Myers was NOT in
>the "LN" camp as of the time that program aired....and he's ON CAMERA
>saying so.
You sure have a funny sense of what proof is needed...
>So much for Dale's "pretending". Or does Tony Marsh think that Dale
>Myers WAS only "pretending" to be in the CT camp when he went on camera
>and talked of how Oswald must have surely had an accomplice to drive
>him to 10th Street?
How silly...
>If THAT was a "ruse" on Mr. Myers part...he ought to get some credit
>(or some award) for "thinking in advance".
I think *YOU* need to get an award for 'creative' spinning.
>> Who has a theory of 3 assassins causing the SBT wounds? Name please. Book?
>
>There is none. And that's part of the overall CT problem re. their
>anti-SBT stance (quite obviously). No CTer ever seems to want to
>explain in bullet-by-bullet detail what "REALLY DID HAPPEN", in lieu of
>the SBT.
Untrue. A number of examples have been provided... and it doesn't matter how
many times I mention them, LNT'ers will keep trotting out this factoid.
But we *knew* that you're a liar, Davey-boy.
>Most CTers maintain the blanket belief of "The SBT Is Impossible"
And supply the evidence that you can't refute...
>and
>just leave it laying right there....with no substitute in its place.
Other than the obvious one... that there were multiple shooters.
David VP
when he appeared in the '93 PBS special. Only a CT kook (i.e., Ben)
would think otherwise.
Also -- Ben has never once presented any type of anti-SBT theory that
is either believable or logical or the slightest bit doable (except in
a certain kook's orbs). But if Ben thinks he has....then I guess it
must be true.
May 2007, Ben. Less than a year away.
Gird 'em.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Mr. Myers was obviously exhibiting "I'm A CTer" qualities/tendencies
>when he appeared in the '93 PBS special. Only a CT kook (i.e., Ben)
>would think otherwise.
Notice, everyone, that Davey-boy couldn't refute my arguments - so rather than
respond to them, he merely reiterates his position.
How cowardly!
>Also -- Ben has never once presented any type of anti-SBT theory
Yep... more than one shooter.
Simple.
Believable.
Fits the known facts.
>that
>is either believable or logical or the slightest bit doable (except in
>a certain kook's orbs). But if Ben thinks he has....then I guess it
>must be true.
>
>May 2007, Ben. Less than a year away.
Presumably this is the newest asserted publish date for Bugliosi's book... I
never can seem to get you to confirm this.
You won't be able to refute what CT'ers here say about Bugliosi's book - should
it ever come out.
>Gird 'em.
David VP
Anthony Marsh
> http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
>
So, Judyth's book just came out. Where is Bugliosi's book? You
originally promised it for release this year. Then March 2007. Now May
2007. Maybe June 2019?
Anthony Marsh
> Mr. Myers was obviously exhibiting "I'm A CTer" qualities/tendencies
> when he appeared in the '93 PBS special. Only a CT kook (i.e., Ben)
> would think otherwise.
>
What did Dale Myers ever say or publish that you think means he was once
a conspiracy believer? Quotes please.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Many WC defenders have tried to trick us by claiming that they were originally conspiracy believers, but they never produce any messages or articles they wrote at the time arguing conspiracy. They are simply lying. Pretending."
>
> Big ol' LOL here!
>
> Obviously, Mr. Marsh has never seen the excellent 1993 PBS-TV
> documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" .... Because within that
> broadcast, Dale Myers appears on camera as an obvious "CTer". He speaks
> specifically in that program of his own belief that Oswald could not
> possibly have travelled the 0.9-mile distance from his roominghouse at
> 1026 N. Beckley Avenue to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder near the
> corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in the allotted amount of time
> required for LHO to "meet" Tippit (approx. 13-15 minutes).
>
That doubt says nothing about the JFK killing being a conspiracy.
> Myers goes on to explain to the PBS audience of his (Myers') belief
> that Oswald must have been "driven" to 10th & Patton by an accomplice,
> instead of hoofing it on his own.
>
> Now, that PBS appearance in 1993 wasn't talking about the JFK killing
> specifically (or the SBT)....but it's obvious that Mr. Myers was NOT in
> the "LN" camp as of the time that program aired....and he's ON CAMERA
> saying so.
>
> So much for Dale's "pretending". Or does Tony Marsh think that Dale
> Myers WAS only "pretending" to be in the CT camp when he went on camera
> and talked of how Oswald must have surely had an accomplice to drive
> him to 10th Street?
>
I did not say that he was pretending anything then. Just that he is now
pretending that he used to be a conspiracy believer.
> If THAT was a "ruse" on Mr. Myers part...he ought to get some credit
> (or some award) for "thinking in advance".
>
Not necessarily Myers, but there have been a few people who pretended to
be conspiracy believers who were actively working for the cover-up.
>
>>> "Who has a theory of 3 assassins causing the SBT wounds? Name please. Book?"
>
> There is none. And that's part of the overall CT problem re. their
> anti-SBT stance (quite obviously). No CTer ever seems to want to
> explain in bullet-by-bullet detail what "REALLY DID HAPPEN", in lieu of
> the SBT.
>
I have, several times.
> Most CTers maintain the blanket belief of "The SBT Is Impossible" and
> just leave it laying right there....with no substitute in its place.
As critics they are not required to offer their own theories.
> Funny, isn't it? I always thought the two men WERE wounded in SOME
> fashion by bullets on 11/22/63. Guess not though. Must have been a
> dream (kind of like "Bobby In The Shower" or something.)
>
Strawman.
> But it doesn't matter at all if a specific person has written a
> specific "3 Gunmen" anti-SBT theory --- because whether it's been given
> utterance by an author or not, a THREE-GUNMEN anti-SBT theory is
> REQUIRED of conspiracists if the SBT is wrong. (Mark Fuhrman's wild LN
> guesses notwithstanding.) .....
>
You may need three gunmen to account for ALL the wounds, but your
construct was only about the wounds attributed to the SBT. Those could
be done by one gunman or two.
> Because most CTers have the JFK throat wound as an ENTRY hole. (Gunman
> #1.)
>
Some, not most. We voted on this. Only a minority think it was an entry
hole.
> Then there's JFK's back wound. (Gunman #2.)
>
Gunman #1 was responsible for both the back wound and the throat wound.
Don't keep laying your strawman arguments on us.
> Then there's JBC's back wound (being sustained at a time, per virtually
> every CTer I've ever encountered, which prohibits Gunman #2 from also
> firing this shot into JBC). (Gunman #3.)
>
Not necessarily. Connally's back wound could conceivably have come at
the same time as Kennedy's. I don't happen to believe that is possible,
but many conspiracy believers do. Remember Humes's solution pre-SBT had
one bullet going through Kennedy and Connally's torso.
David VP
*I* never "promised" a darn thing. Why do you say I promised something
in this regard??
The prior release dates I have stated were obviously tentative dates,
as anyone could easily have detected.
David VP
This certainly is NOT my own experience when talking with CTers. Almost
ALL of the CTers I've talked to believe that the throat wound was an
entry wound. Very nearly 100%. Your "minority" thing here is crazy and
almost certainly untrue (based on what most CTers want to believe).
And it makes sense (in a CTer's eyes) to not want to accept the throat
wound as an exit -- because to do so (and use any common sense at all)
is to believe the SBT. Because if that bullet exited JFK's
throat.....it had two places to go (via the WC and via ordinary common
sense as well) -- it had to go into the car and cause obvious damage
(which it didn't), or it had to go into John Connally sitting right in
front of Kennedy....which it most certainly did.
If Gunman #1 was responsible for a T&T wound on JFK (with that bullet
not striking Governor Connally)....WHERE IS THE BULLET? Where did it
go? And where is the limo damage that certainly would have been caused
by that bullet?
David VP
a conspiracy believer? Quotes please."
In addition to the obvious pro-CT slant to his words in the 1993 PBS-TV
documentary .... there's also the info provided by Dale on his website
that indicates he was once a CTer, including lecturing at universities
as an "outspoken conspiracy theorist"......
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq.htm
Are you now going to insinuate that everything written on that webpage
re. Dale having been a CTer prior to the mid-90s is nothing but a pack
of lies?
Robert Harris
>Mr. Myers was obviously exhibiting "I'm A CTer" qualities/tendencies
>when he appeared in the '93 PBS special. Only a CT kook (i.e., Ben)
>would think otherwise.
Myers is a chronic liar and a phony. He is also a rather desperate
wannabe Posner.
Back in '94 he wrote an article in an Amiga magazine that was almost
word for word, taken straight out of *case closed*.
Much of his "animation" is totally bogus. In fact, I challenged him in
this newsgroup over and over again, to post the angles he used to
create the appearance that the 223 shot aligned perfectly with the 6th
floor alleged SN.
He evaded me every time, demanding that I buy his video which of
course, never mentioned those angles, either.
You can read our exchange in Google groups, right up to the point,
when he slunk out of the newsgroup, totally discredited.
Robert Harris
>
>Also -- Ben has never once presented any type of anti-SBT theory that
>is either believable or logical or the slightest bit doable (except in
>a certain kook's orbs). But if Ben thinks he has....then I guess it
>must be true.
>
>May 2007, Ben. Less than a year away.
>
>Gird 'em.
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
Oh, naturally.
Any LNer who exhibits some common sense is always regarded as a "liar"
and/or a "phony" by a conspiracy kook. Nothing new there.
Vince Bugliosi will be so regarded by certain rabid, never-wavering CT
kooks, too. Without doubt. But to other conspiracy believers (i.e., CT
non-kooks) who haven't devoted the bulk of their lives to CT-ism re.
the JFK case, Vincent B. will change some minds. That, too, is without
question.
And why you think Mr. Myers just "created" (from whole cloth) the angle
from the SN to the limo (and through the victims) is something I guess
only you and the Lord might be privy to.....but Dale's work is all laid
out on his website. The angle through the victims back up to the point
of origin IS what it IS.....period. And it just happens to trace back
to the Oswald window.
I wonder if CTers would question Mr. Myers' credibility if he'd have
come up with a computer model that, say, produced a trajectory cone
that centered on a lower Dal-Tex floor? Or a floor in the Records
Building?
Would he be a "chronic liar" if he would have "created" those pro-CT
trajectory cones? Prob'ly not, huh?
But since he's an LNer who supports the SBT from the SN, he's a "liar"
and a "phony".
CTer logic belongs on the Moon. (The dark side of it.)
Robert Harris
Ah yes!
That crazy, 89 percent of the country that is just loony as hell!
But if your little band of hardcore zealots are so correct, why is it
that all you guys can do is run, run, run, run??
Why do you have to continually snip facts and evidence, rather than
deal with it logically?
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Ben Holmes
says...
Tell us, is this another "tentative" date? Or can we actually expect to see
something published *this* time?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> We voted on this. Only a minority think it {JFK's throat wound} was an
>> entry hole. .... Gunman #1 was responsible for both the back wound and
>> the throat wound. Don't keep laying your strawman arguments on us.
>
>
>This certainly is NOT my own experience when talking with CTers.
Of course not. You're speaking to a LNT'er who *claims* to be a CT'er.
Why you'd accept anything he says about other CT'ers without checking simply
shows how well you know Tony.
>Almost
>ALL of the CTers I've talked to believe that the throat wound was an
>entry wound. Very nearly 100%. Your "minority" thing here is crazy and
>almost certainly untrue (based on what most CTers want to believe).
"Very nearly 100%"... probably the only true statement you've made in a long
time, Davey-boy.
>And it makes sense (in a CTer's eyes) to not want to accept the throat
>wound as an exit -- because to do so (and use any common sense at all)
>is to believe the SBT. Because if that bullet exited JFK's
>throat.....it had two places to go (via the WC and via ordinary common
>sense as well) -- it had to go into the car and cause obvious damage
>(which it didn't), or it had to go into John Connally sitting right in
>front of Kennedy....which it most certainly did.
Or it simply went flying out of the limo. For CT'ers aren't stuck, as you are,
with a single assassin firing from the 6th floor.
But it's nonsense to even discuss it. For the best evidence *BASED ON A MEDICAL
EXAMINATION* is that the neck wound was an entry. It's simply speculation based
*after* the autopsy that it was anything other than what Dr. Perry and others at
Parkland believed it to be.
Second, you have to have a bullet *transit* JFK's body... and there is credible
evidence that this never happened. The SBT is a dying attempt to save the
LNT'er theory. It was 'dying' even before the WCR was published, since many of
the commissioners didn't even believe it.
>If Gunman #1 was responsible for a T&T wound on JFK (with that bullet
>not striking Governor Connally)....WHERE IS THE BULLET?
Same place that the bullet *YOU* can't find is.
>Where did it go?
File cabinet in Hoover's office. (After being recovered at Parkland and swapped
for CE399)
>And where is the limo damage that certainly would have been caused
>by that bullet?
Strawman. You assume that any shots came from the 6th floor, *AND* transited.
Have fun snipping, Davey-boy: for probably all lurkers by now know that you
can't respond to a post without snipping everything you can't answer...
Todd W. Vaughan
>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
Great work Ben.
Todd
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "Myers is a chronic liar and a phony."
>
>Oh, naturally.
>
>Any LNer who exhibits some common sense is always regarded as a "liar"
>and/or a "phony" by a conspiracy kook. Nothing new there.
Proven, of course, by their inability to answer simple questions concerning the
evidence, their omission of evidential matters, their dishonest snipping, etc.
>Vince Bugliosi will be so regarded by certain rabid, never-wavering CT
>kooks, too. Without doubt.
We've already *TOLD* you that. Didn't you believe us?
No LNT'er apologist has yet come out with a book on the topic that can't be
shown to omit evidence, and lie about the testimony.
>But to other conspiracy believers (i.e., CT
>non-kooks) who haven't devoted the bulk of their lives to CT-ism re.
>the JFK case, Vincent B. will change some minds. That, too, is without
>question.
Nonsense. The poll numbers will continue to climb.
>And why you think Mr. Myers just "created" (from whole cloth) the angle
>from the SN to the limo (and through the victims) is something I guess
>only you and the Lord might be privy to.....but Dale's work is all laid
>out on his website. The angle through the victims back up to the point
>of origin IS what it IS.....period. And it just happens to trace back
>to the Oswald window.
When you *start* with flawed data, you end up with flawed data.
>I wonder if CTers would question Mr. Myers' credibility if he'd have
>come up with a computer model that, say, produced a trajectory cone
>that centered on a lower Dal-Tex floor? Or a floor in the Records
>Building?
He can't. The starting data (at the level of accuracy needed) simply doesn't
exist.
>Would he be a "chronic liar" if he would have "created" those pro-CT
>trajectory cones? Prob'ly not, huh?
>
>But since he's an LNer who supports the SBT from the SN, he's a "liar"
>and a "phony".
Wouldn't know... never spoke with him. But if he believes in the SBT, then he
certainly doesn't follow the evidence.
>CTer logic belongs on the Moon. (The dark side of it.)
Rather funny, this. To believe what the evidence tells us, rather than
speculation; Davey-boy believes is nutty.
lazu...@webtv.net
by asking two simple questions. 1. Why was the throat wound not probed
so that the neck organs could be removed, contrary to autopsy protocol?
and 2. Why hide a shot from the rear?
The answer to Question #1 is that the autopsists were forbidden to
dissect the throat wound by their military superiors. Why? Because such
standard exploration would reveal that the bullet entered from the front
and passed thru the right lobe of the thyroid gland.
The answer to Question #2 is obvious. Because if allowed, normal
exploration of the wound would reveal the real direction of the bullet,
and perhaps even more importantly, the true nature of the bullet. If
the shot were truly from the rear, there would be no need for the
restrictions imposed on the pathologists.
Finally, to answer the inevitable LN question of where did the shot go?
Recall that Jerrold Custer called the autopsists' attention to small
metal fragments in the mid-cervical region Xray (an Xray now
conveniently absent from the records), but as he says, he was told to
"mind my own business".
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>Ben,
>
>>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>
>
>Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>
>Great work Ben.
>
>Todd
Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
*are* evidence.
David VP
Of course it's just another "tentative" date. (Just exactly like the
linked article said..."tentative" was used specifically in that
article.)
But regardless of delays, VB's book is positively coming....whether it
be 2007 or 2017. He's not going to put 20 years and 2100 pages into a
project and just sit on it to wallpaper his house. That's a certainty.
David VP
Yeah, right...after striking no hard structures at all within JFK, this
bullet (travelling on a downward path at 17 to 20 degrees) magically
decides to take off and exit the vehicle (after somehow also missing
John B. Connally, which is also impossible).
Sure....and Sara Lee is JUST a cheesecake too...right?
>> "All lurkers by now know that you can't respond to a {BLAH-BLAH-CT KOOK BLATHER-BLAH....}"
What lurkers? You're nuts. This place is as vacant as the space
reserved in Ben's brain for "CS&L".
David VP
Gee, where have I heard that before do you suppose? (At least you
didn't use the proverbial "GIGO" acronym this time. I applaud your
"GIGO" restraint.)
But let me ask this .... Just exactly what makes you think Dale Myers'
"data" is wholly "flawed"?
IOW -- How do you KNOW that YOUR data isn't "flawed" worse than Mr.
Myers'? Are your "CT Approximations" any more reliable and valid than
Mr. Myers'?
Answer -- No.
In short, you don't have any better "starting data" than Dale Myers (or
anyone else) possesses. You're living in a CTer world where ANYTHING
that points to the SBT being plausible will be frowned upon and
ridiculed. Which is a CT stance that has always made me laugh aloud
too. For, I've always pondered as to WHY it is exactly that the rabid
CT/Kook faction "investigating" this murder case must always bash the
SBT? The SBT and a "conspiracy" could easily co-exist in a CTer's eyes
and mind. Even with the SBT thought of as a fact (which it undeniably
is), the CT/Kooksters can still maintain "conspiracy" via the
proverbial James Files (or whoever it was) shot from the Knoll which
killed Kennedy at Z313.
In fact, I've always said that CTers would look far more credible if
they'd simply stop fighting the losing "Anti-SBT" battle and admit the
obvious -- i.e., the SBT is correct.
Remaining anti-SBT only makes CTers far less credible with regard to
everything else they postulate surrounding the JFK case (particularly
if that same CTer wants to purport that Lee Oswald didn't shoot J.D.
Tippit).
>> "The starting data (at the level of accuracy needed) simply doesn't exist."
Yeah, let's make this shooting WAY more complicated than it needs to
be. And let's make it as "impossible to solve" as humanly possible so
that the CTers can cling to their silly belief structure for a few more
decades. Pfftttt.
I don't deny for a second that the EXACT positions of the victims in
the limo are (to a certain degree) "unknown" factors. In fact, I've
ALWAYS said this....and have stressed this limitation many times in
previous posts on this and other JFK forums.
But many of the "starting" points and data surrounding the double-man
wounding of JFK & JBC are there to work with....and common sense all by
itself should tell anyone examining the OVERALL evidence that the
Single-Bullet Theory is more than mere theory....it's the way things
happened on Elm Street.
Overall evidence such as:
The wound placement on the victims; plus the lack of bullets or
fragments found in the victims; plus the lack of limo damage; plus the
approximated angle through which a single bullet would have travelled
through the two victims if the SBT is a fact; plus the approximated
angle of trajectory; plus the elongated wound on JBC's back; plus the
common-sense fact that any bullet exiting JFK's neck would have almost
HAD to have hit JBC.
And the logical (and Occam's-like) answer to all of the above is: One
single bullet passed through both men...with that bullet ending up on
Connally's stretcher after he was taken to surgery on the 2nd Floor of
Parkland Hospital.
The "starting data" fully supports the SBT (approximated though some of
it is inevitably going to be). But CTers must "approximate" things too,
it must be remembered. They don't have a RULER TO CONSPIRACY in this
case....and to think they do have one is pure folly.
As Mark Fuhrman said in his book, murder is usually pretty "simple".
>From Fuhrman's experiences as a 20-year law officer in California,
murder is indeed usually a fairly "simple" crime to solve. And this one
involving President Kennedy is not as impossible to figure out as most
CTers want to shout.
But, again, what is impossible for me to personally figure out is why
so many CTers are "Anti-SBT"....when there's absolutely no purely "CT"
reason to reside on that side of the SBT fence. Very curious indeed.
http://webster.com/dictionary/Occam's%20Razor
--------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; 1986
--------------
"I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and
beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
2001
--------------
One more VB quote, just for good measure (this one should make some
CTer eyebrows go up a tad bit):
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Or it {the bullet that some CT Kooks say exited JFK's throat but did no limo damage and also did not proceed into JBC's body} simply went flying out of the limo."
>
> Yeah, right...after striking no hard structures at all within JFK, this
> bullet (travelling on a downward path at 17 to 20 degrees) magically
> decides to take off and exit the vehicle (after somehow also missing
> John B. Connally, which is also impossible).
>
How many times are you going to keep repeating that Big Lie?
The bullet hit the vertebra.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "When you *start* with flawed data, you end up with flawed data.
>
> Gee, where have I heard that before do you suppose? (At least you
> didn't use the proverbial "GIGO" acronym this time. I applaud your
> "GIGO" restraint.)
>
> But let me ask this .... Just exactly what makes you think Dale Myers'
> "data" is wholly "flawed"?
>
Because at least we can tell the difference between BELOW the top of the
shoulders and ABOVE the top of the shoulders. Myers can't.
> IOW -- How do you KNOW that YOUR data isn't "flawed" worse than Mr.
> Myers'? Are your "CT Approximations" any more reliable and valid than
> Mr. Myers'?
>
> Answer -- No.
>
> In short, you don't have any better "starting data" than Dale Myers (or
> anyone else) possesses. You're living in a CTer world where ANYTHING
Yes, we do. We have the actual autopsy photos.
> that points to the SBT being plausible will be frowned upon and
> ridiculed. Which is a CT stance that has always made me laugh aloud
> too. For, I've always pondered as to WHY it is exactly that the rabid
> CT/Kook faction "investigating" this murder case must always bash the
> SBT? The SBT and a "conspiracy" could easily co-exist in a CTer's eyes
> and mind. Even with the SBT thought of as a fact (which it undeniably
COULD? COULD? It's exactly what the HSCA and its adherents say.
> is), the CT/Kooksters can still maintain "conspiracy" via the
> proverbial James Files (or whoever it was) shot from the Knoll which
> killed Kennedy at Z313.
And the proverbial clueless WC defender can keep making up strawman
arguments like File instead of actually studying the physical evidence.
>
> In fact, I've always said that CTers would look far more credible if
> they'd simply stop fighting the losing "Anti-SBT" battle and admit the
> obvious -- i.e., the SBT is correct.
>
WC defenders might have a razor thin chance at self-respect if they
could just let go of their silly SBT.
> Remaining anti-SBT only makes CTers far less credible with regard to
> everything else they postulate surrounding the JFK case (particularly
> if that same CTer wants to purport that Lee Oswald didn't shoot J.D.
> Tippit).
>
Which person is that?
>
>
>>> "The starting data (at the level of accuracy needed) simply doesn't exist."
>
> Yeah, let's make this shooting WAY more complicated than it needs to
> be. And let's make it as "impossible to solve" as humanly possible so
> that the CTers can cling to their silly belief structure for a few more
> decades. Pfftttt.
The crime was quite simple to solve until someone dreamed up the SBT.
A Rube Goldberg solution.
>
> I don't deny for a second that the EXACT positions of the victims in
> the limo are (to a certain degree) "unknown" factors. In fact, I've
> ALWAYS said this....and have stressed this limitation many times in
> previous posts on this and other JFK forums.
>
> But many of the "starting" points and data surrounding the double-man
> wounding of JFK & JBC are there to work with....and common sense all by
> itself should tell anyone examining the OVERALL evidence that the
> Single-Bullet Theory is more than mere theory....it's the way things
> happened on Elm Street.
>
> Overall evidence such as:
>
> The wound placement on the victims; plus the lack of bullets or
> fragments found in the victims; plus the lack of limo damage; plus the
> approximated angle through which a single bullet would have travelled
> through the two victims if the SBT is a fact; plus the approximated
> angle of trajectory; plus the elongated wound on JBC's back; plus the
> common-sense fact that any bullet exiting JFK's neck would have almost
> HAD to have hit JBC.
>
Plus your lack of knowledge about the evidence.
One more VB quote, just for fun. "My book should be out next year." Pick
any year you want.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
>> Ben,
>>
>>> What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>>> again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>>
>> Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>>
>> Great work Ben.
>>
>> Todd
>
>
> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
> *are* evidence.
>
That is the stupidist thing I have heard. A newspaper caption is not
Anthony Marsh
> On 5 Jun 2006 18:00:16 -0700, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Myers was obviously exhibiting "I'm A CTer" qualities/tendencies
>> when he appeared in the '93 PBS special. Only a CT kook (i.e., Ben)
>> would think otherwise.
>
> Myers is a chronic liar and a phony. He is also a rather desperate
> wannabe Posner.
>
> Back in '94 he wrote an article in an Amiga magazine that was almost
> word for word, taken straight out of *case closed*.
>
> Much of his "animation" is totally bogus. In fact, I challenged him in
> this newsgroup over and over again, to post the angles he used to
> create the appearance that the 223 shot aligned perfectly with the 6th
> floor alleged SN.
>
> He evaded me every time, demanding that I buy his video which of
> course, never mentioned those angles, either.
>
> You can read our exchange in Google groups, right up to the point,
> when he slunk out of the newsgroup, totally discredited.
>
>
>
>
>
I asked Dale Myers several times what appears to be a simple
mathematical question. What is the distance from the middle of Main
Street to the face of the TSBD. He has always refused to answer. He
knows what GIGO means.
Anthony Marsh
Yes.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "We voted on this. Only a minority think it {JFK's throat wound} was an entry hole. .... Gunman #1 was responsible for both the back wound and the throat wound. Don't keep laying your strawman arguments on us."
>
>
> This certainly is NOT my own experience when talking with CTers. Almost
> ALL of the CTers I've talked to believe that the throat wound was an
> entry wound. Very nearly 100%. Your "minority" thing here is crazy and
> almost certainly untrue (based on what most CTers want to believe).
>
That is not what I said. You may run into a small subset of conspiracy
believers. I am talking about the research community in general.
Only one said that no shots came from the rear. Can you guess who?
> And it makes sense (in a CTer's eyes) to not want to accept the throat
> wound as an exit -- because to do so (and use any common sense at all)
> is to believe the SBT. Because if that bullet exited JFK's
No, faulty logic on your part. Lots of people have accepted the throat
wound as an exit without needing the SBT.
> throat.....it had two places to go (via the WC and via ordinary common
> sense as well) -- it had to go into the car and cause obvious damage
> (which it didn't), or it had to go into John Connally sitting right in
> front of Kennedy....which it most certainly did.
>
> If Gunman #1 was responsible for a T&T wound on JFK (with that bullet
> not striking Governor Connally)....WHERE IS THE BULLET? Where did it
About 1/4 mile west of Dealey Plaza.
> go? And where is the limo damage that certainly would have been caused
> by that bullet?
>
In the scrap heap.
David VP
Why do you say this, Tony? Verification would be nice.
And any such "verification" from CT-Land would directly contradict the
official autopsy report, which said that nothing solid was hit inside
JFK's neck/back. Naturally, that report (signed by 3 doctors) is a pack
of lies just because you say it is...right?
David VP
Oh...and Dale Myers has been working with only drawings done by Matt
Groening...right?? LOL.
>> "WC defenders might have a razor thin chance at self-respect if they could just let go of their silly SBT."
LOL.
LOL.
One more....
LOL.
>> "The crime was quite simple to solve until someone dreamed up the SBT."
With this non-SBT "simplicity" involving multiple disappearing bullets
from multiple unseen killers and "creating" a wound path that looks
remarkably similar to an "SBT wound path". (Not to mention the "We Got
Lucky Again!" factor of having the bullet go into John Connally kinda
sideways...making it look even BETTER for that silly ol' SBT scenario.)
Yep...you're right, Tone.
That's MUCH simpler than any silly ol' SBT involving just one bullet
(that was actually found and tested).
Ben Holmes
says...
And it's a certainty that his book will be trashed quite authoritatively, using
the evidence, in a manner that *you* won't be able to respond to.
David VP
Thanks for this (repeated) warning.
It's at least comforting to realize that VB's "Final Verdict" (which
will be laced with CS&L, without a shred of a doubt) will be
"authoritatively" trashed by the CT-Kook faction. VB must be quaking
with fear due to this prospect.
And will Ben-boy be a major part of this ruling "authority" in this
"trashing" regard....do ya think? (If so, then Vince is home free.)
lazu...@webtv.net
"------The official autopsy report, which said that nothing solid was
hit inside JFK's neck/ back---"
It doesn't actually say any such thing. What it does say is that the
bullet "did not penetrate", thus implying it did not transit the body.
You cannot use the autopsy report to support your BST. The
pathologists' notion of transit was only a later speculation, and not
based on primary evidence, i. e. with the body in front of them.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Or it simply went flying out of the limo.
>
>Yeah, right...after striking no hard structures at all within JFK, this
>bullet (travelling on a downward path at 17 to 20 degrees) magically
>decides to take off and exit the vehicle (after somehow also missing
>John B. Connally, which is also impossible).
>
>Sure....and Sara Lee is JUST a cheesecake too...right?
You see? You have assumptions that you are so intent on that you can't
recognise the truth that's right in front of you.
Snipped everything again, I see. Such cowardly behavior surely does your
arguments no good.
>> All lurkers by now know that you can't respond to a <snipped by Davey-boy>
>
>What lurkers? You're nuts. This place is as vacant as the space
>reserved in Ben's brain for "CS&L".
Davey-boy thinks that there are no lurkers, yet he snips all the time to avoid
what lurkers will think when they see that he can't respond.
Ben Holmes
Once again, Davey-boy snips entire posts... unable to respond to the vast
majority of my statements.
Rather cowardly, isn't it Davey-boy?
In article <1149715444.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> When you *start* with flawed data, you end up with flawed data.
>
>Gee, where have I heard that before do you suppose? (At least you
>didn't use the proverbial "GIGO" acronym this time. I applaud your
>"GIGO" restraint.)
It might be amusing for lurkers to type in Dale Myers name along with "GIGO"
just to see what turns up...
>But let me ask this .... Just exactly what makes you think Dale Myers'
>"data" is wholly "flawed"?
Quite simple. He's trying to project where the assassins were using
guesstimates for the entry and exit points on the body.
At the range being discussed, the difference of mere inches can translate to
entirely different locations, even different buildings.
You can't make non-existent evidence prove anything... but this is what Myers is
doing.
>IOW -- How do you KNOW that YOUR data isn't "flawed" worse than Mr.
>Myers'?
I don't *have* data at the level that Myers claims to have. For that matter, no
one does.
As merely one example, virtually anything Myers comes up with is going to be
dependent on *where* the limo was at the time of particular shots. Feel free to
*cite* the locations.
>Are your "CT Approximations" any more reliable and valid than
>Mr. Myers'?
>
>Answer -- No.
>
>In short, you don't have any better "starting data" than Dale Myers (or
>anyone else) possesses.
How silly...
>You're living in a CTer world where ANYTHING
>that points to the SBT being plausible will be frowned upon and
>ridiculed.
By all means, go ahead and list any such evidence. Then see if you can stick
around long enough to *defend* it, unsnipped, after I demolish it with the
evidence.
>Which is a CT stance that has always made me laugh aloud
>too. For, I've always pondered as to WHY it is exactly that the rabid
>CT/Kook faction "investigating" this murder case must always bash the
>SBT? The SBT and a "conspiracy" could easily co-exist in a CTer's eyes
>and mind. Even with the SBT thought of as a fact (which it undeniably
>is), the CT/Kooksters can still maintain "conspiracy" via the
>proverbial James Files (or whoever it was) shot from the Knoll which
>killed Kennedy at Z313.
>
>In fact, I've always said that CTers would look far more credible if
>they'd simply stop fighting the losing "Anti-SBT" battle and admit the
>obvious -- i.e., the SBT is correct.
Not even all the Commissioners believed it, why should I?
>Remaining anti-SBT only makes CTers far less credible with regard to
>everything else they postulate surrounding the JFK case (particularly
>if that same CTer wants to purport that Lee Oswald didn't shoot J.D.
>Tippit).
Oh, I think I'd rather be in the *HUGE* majority of the 'less credible'.
>> The starting data (at the level of accuracy needed) simply doesn't exist.
>
>Yeah, let's make this shooting WAY more complicated than it needs to
>be. And let's make it as "impossible to solve" as humanly possible so
>that the CTers can cling to their silly belief structure for a few more
>decades. Pfftttt.
How much physics did you muck through in school? You evidently don't understand
the problems.
>I don't deny for a second that the EXACT positions of the victims in
>the limo are (to a certain degree) "unknown" factors. In fact, I've
>ALWAYS said this....and have stressed this limitation many times in
>previous posts on this and other JFK forums.
Bingo... That's all that needs to be said.
>But many of the "starting" points and data surrounding the double-man
>wounding of JFK & JBC are there to work with....and common sense all by
>itself should tell anyone examining the OVERALL evidence that the
>Single-Bullet Theory is more than mere theory....it's the way things
>happened on Elm Street.
LOL! And yet, you will be UNABLE to respond to this rebuttal without snipping.
>Overall evidence such as:
>
>The wound placement on the victims;
The *alleged* wound placement, you mean. Eyewitnesses at the autopsy have
disputed that there could have been any transit between the two wounds.
>plus the lack of bullets or
>fragments found in the victims;
Where's the other bullet, Davey-boy?
>plus the lack of limo damage;
The limo *WAS* damaged. And indisputably by a bullet, too.
>plus the
>approximated angle through which a single bullet would have travelled
>through the two victims if the SBT is a fact;
45 to 60 degrees downward? Are you insane?
>plus the approximated
>angle of trajectory;
Unknown if you don't know the location of the limo at the time of a given shot.
Why did the WC keep *changing* this data?
>plus the elongated wound on JBC's back;
Means nothing. The human body is not a flat surface.
>plus the
>common-sense fact that any bullet exiting JFK's neck would have almost
>HAD to have hit JBC.
Untrue. First, making the *SPECULATION* that the neck wound was an exit, where
would the entry have been? Certainly not *BELOW* the neck, as the back wound
certainly was. This is why Ford verbally moved the back wound to the base of
the neck.
Second, you presume the starting point of the bullet.
>And the logical (and Occam's-like) answer to all of the above is:
Given above, and you *won't* respond without snipping.
>One
>single bullet passed through both men...with that bullet ending up on
>Connally's stretcher after he was taken to surgery on the 2nd Floor of
>Parkland Hospital.
>
>The "starting data" fully supports the SBT (approximated though some of
>it is inevitably going to be). But CTers must "approximate" things too,
>it must be remembered. They don't have a RULER TO CONSPIRACY in this
>case....and to think they do have one is pure folly.
>
>As Mark Fuhrman said in his book, murder is usually pretty "simple".
>>From Fuhrman's experiences as a 20-year law officer in California,
>murder is indeed usually a fairly "simple" crime to solve. And this one
>involving President Kennedy is not as impossible to figure out as most
>CTers want to shout.
Indeed... this explains why as much as 90% of America seems "kooky" to you.
>But, again, what is impossible for me to personally figure out is why
>so many CTers are "Anti-SBT"....
Of course not. You're too stupid to figure it out.
>when there's absolutely no purely "CT"
>reason to reside on that side of the SBT fence.
Of course there is... it's called "evidence".
>Very curious indeed.
>
>http://webster.com/dictionary/Occam's%20Razor
>
>--------------
>
>"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
>other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
>fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vincent
>Bugliosi; 1986
No, the evidence *doesn't* show that.
>--------------
>
>"I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and
>beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
>2001
Yep... another kook.
>--------------
>
>One more VB quote, just for good measure (this one should make some
>CTer eyebrows go up a tad bit):
>
>"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
>charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
>invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
>Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
Then he's welcome to step up to the plate, make his assertions *HERE* where
knowledgeable people can either accept or rebut his statements.
Any *honest* man can defend his words, Bugliosi won't do so, nor will you 'fill
in' for him.
David VP
Is that the reason I "snip"?
And I always thought it was because you're a CT-kook.
Thanks for the clarification.
:)
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>>> What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>>>> again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>>>
>>> Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>>>
>>> Great work Ben.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>
>>
>> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And
>> yes, they *are* evidence.
>
>That is the stupidist thing I have heard. A newspaper caption is not
>evidence.
Give us the reason that the photos were published. Make *no* reference to the
caption given.
Let's see just how stupid you really want to be, Tony.
And do you ever plan on addressing your lies referenced in another post, Tony?
David VP
And just exactly HOW could JFK have had ANY wounds on him (or in him)
that would have resulted in a "45-to-60-degree downward" bullet
wound(s) through his body??
Please tell me WHERE that shooter was firing at JFK from that created
that steep of a bullet path --- the top deck at Fenway Park??
Are YOU insane???
Ben Holmes
The entire post snipped again. The snipping cowards snips again, and having
snipped, runs away again...
In article <1149725460....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> And it's a certainty that his book will be trashed quite authoritatively,
>> using the evidence, in a manner that *you* won't be able to respond to.
>
>Thanks for this (repeated) warning.
>
>It's at least comforting to realize that VB's "Final Verdict" (which
>will be laced with CS&L,
But not, evidently, with evidence & testimony...
The speculation that Davey-boy consistently identifies as CS&L is merely that.
>without a shred of a doubt) will be
>"authoritatively" trashed by the CT-Kook faction. VB must be quaking
>with fear due to this prospect.
This probably explains his repeated delays... he's trying his best to shore up
his "conclusions", and he's running into problems.
He needn't fear the critical press, when it comes to this topic, it doesn't
exist... but anyone who's knowledgeable on this topic will no doubt get a good
laugh out of Bugliosi's attempt.
It'll no doubt be great spin, and smooth... but it won't have the evidence to
hold it together...
>And will Ben-boy be a major part of this ruling "authority" in this
>"trashing" regard....do ya think? (If so, then Vince is home free.)
I really won't need to say anything... for there'll be virtually no-one who will
be willing to defend Bugliosi.
Certainly not you.
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >Ben,
> >
> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
> >
> >
> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
> >
> >Great work Ben.
> >
> >Todd
>
>
> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
> *are* evidence.
The captions are "evidence"?
Sure they are, Ben, sure.
So are the Want Ads.
Todd W. Vaughan
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> > Vaughan says...
> >> Ben,
> >>
> >>> What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
> >>> again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
> >>
> >> Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
> >>
> >> Great work Ben.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >
> >
> > Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
> > *are* evidence.
> >
>
> That is the stupidist thing I have heard. A newspaper caption is not
> evidence.
>
Those old Saturday morning Looney Tunes, Tony. That's evidence too!
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >Ben,
> >
> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
> >
> >
> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
> >
> >Great work Ben.
> >
> >Todd
>
>
> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
> *are* evidence.
>
Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
as published in the DTH?
Ben Holmes
Snipped again... coward, aren't you?
In article <1149735023.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Nope. You tried to assert that the angle of the wound supported your silly
theory.
45 to 60 degrees downward does *NOT*, in any sense whatsoever, support your
silly theory.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >Ben,
>> >
>> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>> >
>> >Great work Ben.
>> >
>> >Todd
>>
>>
>> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes,
>> they *are* evidence.
>
>
>The captions are "evidence"?
>
>Sure they are, Ben, sure.
>
>So are the Want Ads.
I see another coward has jumped forward without any captions to provide...
And any given "want ad", is certainly "evidence" of what that person is selling
or buying. Any suggestion that it is not is merely nonsensical kookiness.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >Ben,
>> >
>> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>> >
>> >Great work Ben.
>> >
>> >Todd
>>
>>
>> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
>> *are* evidence.
>
>
>Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
>published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
>as published in the DTH?
Flip a coin, and provide the caption.
I find it interesting that *you* won't respond to the below rebuttal of
Davey-boy's assertions either...
Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led to the LNT'er position... or does
holding that position turn you *into* a coward?
I'm sure that others would be interested in your thoughts on the matter...
David VP
And tell us once more (or for the first time even) WHERE that assassin
was located who caused that 45-60-degree wound?
Coward, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
says...
Nope. It was *YOU* that made the assertion about the angle... and yet, you
can't produce any citation, testimony, evidence, *NOTHING* that supports your
assertion.
Simply lied, didn't you?
And the fact that you needed to snip the entire post yet again, shows just who
the coward is, doesn't it?
You're yellow, Davey-boy. How embarrassing it must be for you...
David VP
What a booby-hatcher you are.
*I* didn't make any "assertion" about any "45-to-60-degree" angle. YOU
brought up those numbers....followed by an "Are you insane?" remark.
Remember??
Therefore, YOU must think that such an angle of 45-60 degrees (which
YOU brought up, not I) must actually exist in this case. Otherwise why
bring up these figures at all?
For time #3 now --- WHERE in DP could an assassin have been located to
have caused such a steep entry wound on JFK's back?
You're yellow, Benji-boy. How embarrassing it must be for you...
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1149737303.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> >> Vaughan says...
> >> >
> >> >Ben,
> >> >
> >> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
> >> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
> >> >
> >> >Great work Ben.
> >> >
> >> >Todd
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
> >> *are* evidence.
> >
> >
> >Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
> >published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
> >as published in the DTH?
>
>
> Flip a coin, and provide the caption.
I have them, but not handy. Why don't you post them, since it was you
who brought this up?
Then I'll tell you what Harry Cabluck told me about the caption to his
photo when I interviewed him back in the 1990's.
>
> I find it interesting that *you* won't respond to the below rebuttal of
> Davey-boy's assertions either...
>
I'm dealing with this right now, is that OK with you?
>
> Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led to the LNT'er position... or does
> holding that position turn you *into* a coward?
>
> I'm sure that others would be interested in your thoughts on the matter...
>
Coward. Hmm, you've talked to Cabluck about all of this, right?
tomnln
Why are you sop Surprised?
We BOTH know that Felon Supporter/Women Attacker toad Vaughan Majors in the
Minors.
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e689g...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
The answer you seek has something to do with "30 pieces of Silver".
The answer has a Great Deal to do with "Supporting Felons".
The answer has a Great Deal to do with supporting "Coup d'Etat".
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e689o...@drn.newsguy.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Ben;
> Why are you sop Surprised?
See, "sop" is a typo.
Sop I won't make fun of you for it.
> We BOTH know that Felon Supporter/Women Attacker toad Vaughan Majors in the
> Minors.
>
You call ME a woman attacker?
After YOU first attacked my wife, unprovoked in anyway by me?
What a hypocrite you are.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> It was *YOU* that made the assertion about the angle... and yet, you
>> can't produce any citation, testimony, evidence, *NOTHING* that supports
>> your assertion."
>
>What a booby-hatcher you are.
>
>*I* didn't make any "assertion" about any "45-to-60-degree" angle. YOU
>brought up those numbers....followed by an "Are you insane?" remark.
>Remember??
Yep... and if you were *knowledgeable* about the evidence, you'd know that the
45-60 degree angle IS THE ONLY ANGLE TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH BY DR HUMES, AND
AGREED TO BY THE OTHERS PROSECTORS.
You referenced this angle without knowing what it was.
Rather stupid of you... so I pointed it out.
>Therefore, YOU must think that such an angle of 45-60 degrees (which
>YOU brought up, not I) must actually exist in this case. Otherwise why
>bring up these figures at all?
It *does* actually "exist" in this case. Feel free to review the prosector's
testimony.
>For time #3 now --- WHERE in DP could an assassin have been located to
>have caused such a steep entry wound on JFK's back?
Who cares? *YOU* made the point about the angle. Interestingly, you've snipped
it from the post... why is that, I wonder?
And surely, if you actually *know* the evidence, you'd also know why it's silly
to ask. LOL!!
>You're yellow, Benji-boy. How embarrassing it must be for you...
I'm not the wone who refuses to answer questions, snips and runs all the time.
Coward, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149737303.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> >> Vaughan says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Ben,
>> >> >
>>>> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>> >> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> >Great work Ben.
>> >> >
>> >> >Todd
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
>> >> *are* evidence.
>> >
>> >
>> >Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
>> >published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
>> >as published in the DTH?
>>
>>
>> Flip a coin, and provide the caption.
>
>
>I have them, but not handy. Why don't you post them, since it was you
>who brought this up?
Considering that my *point* is that no LNT'er will provide this caption, isn't
it rather silly to ask me to provide it?
>Then I'll tell you what Harry Cabluck told me about the caption to his
>photo when I interviewed him back in the 1990's.
Who cares??? Unless he now admits that he lied.
>> I find it interesting that *you* won't respond to the below rebuttal of
>> Davey-boy's assertions either...
>
>
>I'm dealing with this right now, is that OK with you?
Just pointing out what a coward you are... nothing more. Most lurkers may
recall the FBI intimidation posts that you've been ducking for quite some time
now.
>> Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led to the LNT'er position... or does
>> holding that position turn you *into* a coward?
>>
>> I'm sure that others would be interested in your thoughts on the matter...
>
>Coward.
That's not an answer... once again: Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led
to the LNT'er position... or does holding that position turn you *into* a
coward?
>Hmm, you've talked to Cabluck about all of this, right?
Does *he* explain why LNT'ers always refuse to present this caption?
David VP
located to have caused such a steep entry wound on JFK's back?"
BEN-KOOK: "Who cares?"
--------
This is a perfect illustration of what CTers are famous for doing --
i.e., "isolating" a single piece of useless and obviously-wrong
evidence in the case and then claiming it "proves conspiracy".
Such a CTer doesn't "care" that a downward angle that steep into JFK
was utterly impossible (given the time when JFK was shot on Elm St.,
even if you want to place the back shot all the way back to Z186 like
Mark Fuhrman does).
But the pinky probe estimate of James J. Humes is enough for Benji.
Nothing else needs to be examined evidently. What a loon.
Via such "isolation" of unconfirmed evidence, Ben must also believe
that LBJ had a heart attack on 11/22 and that a SS man was killed on
that day as well.
And Ben must also believe that Charles Brehm was standing on "Commerce
Street" instead of Elm on Nov. 22. After all, Brehm DID say in a filmed
interview that's where he and his 5-year-old boy were located during
the shooting; so it must be true. I guess the Z-Film is fake after all.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>DVP: "For time #3 now --- WHERE in DP could an assassin have been
>located to have caused such a steep entry wound on JFK's back?"
>
>BEN-KOOK: "Who cares?"
>
>--------
>
>This is a perfect illustration of what CTers are famous for doing --
>i.e., "isolating" a single piece of useless and obviously-wrong
>evidence in the case and then claiming it "proves conspiracy".
And this illustrates perfectly the dishonest lying that LNT'ers are forced into
time and time again.
Davey-boy attempted to assert that the angle of the bullet was evidence for the
SBT.
But when the *ONLY* medical evidence concerning this trajectory is mentioned,
Davey-boy goes spastic.
Why do you refuse to retract your statement, Davey-boy?
>Such a CTer doesn't "care" that a downward angle that steep into JFK
>was utterly impossible
Actually, no it isn't. You make presumptions...
(by the way, this illustrates yet again THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN REVIEWED THE
TESTIMONY - LOL!!!)
>(given the time when JFK was shot on Elm St.,
>even if you want to place the back shot all the way back to Z186 like
>Mark Fuhrman does).
Still making presumptions...
>But the pinky probe estimate of James J. Humes is enough for Benji.
>Nothing else needs to be examined evidently. What a loon.
Interestingly, we haven't seen a *SINGLE* citation for your assertion that the
angle supports the SBT.
You even snipped the statement... embarrassed of it, Davey-boy?
>Via such "isolation" of unconfirmed evidence, Ben must also believe
>that LBJ had a heart attack on 11/22 and that a SS man was killed on
>that day as well.
Yet another illustration that Davey-boy hasn't bothered to review the testimony.
If you feel like feeling stupid, do so.
>And Ben must also believe that Charles Brehm was standing on "Commerce
>Street" instead of Elm on Nov. 22. After all, Brehm DID say in a filmed
>interview that's where he and his 5-year-old boy were located during
>the shooting; so it must be true. I guess the Z-Film is fake after all.
It is... but you can't debate *or* refute the evidence for it.
David VP
The silly "45-degree" crap is NOT the "only" medical evidence
concerning the SBT-like trajectory through JFK's body, you blind and
isolating kook!!
Read the whole freaking Warren Report and the TOTALITY of Dr. Humes
testimony. Humes said (and the official autopsy report says) that there
was a wound of entry on JFK's back that was "5.5 in. below the tip of
the right mastoid process". And there was a wound of "exit" in the
throat/neck at the place where Dr. Perry performed the trach at
Parkland.
The trach wound was not measured from any known body landmark,
true....but these two holes, quite obviously, do NOT equate to an angle
through the body of "45-60 degrees downward".
And after just now attempting to find (via specific word-search tools)
the words "45" and "60" in ANY of Dr. Humes' official under-oath
testimony (WC, HSCA, and ARRB), it can be discovered that Dr. Humes
never ONCE mentioned a steep angle of "45-60 degrees" at any of those
official inquiries.
So, when and where did Humes ever say this? And to whom was it
supposedly said? Please cite Humes' "45-60 degree" reference.
The "pinky probe" is barely mentioned in his WC testimony at all.
(There's one reference to "attempting to probe the wound with your
finger" in the lengthy WC/Humes document. But nothing more is said
about it.)
I did find this one reference to "approx. 45 degrees" in Humes' WC
testimony (but the number "60" never once appears within Humes'
testimony):
SPECTER -- "Could you state for the record an approximation of the
angle of decline?"
DR. HUMES -- "Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees
from the horizontal."
Then, of course, there is the following testimony from Dr. Humes, which
positively destroys his other "approx. 45 degree" statement regarding
the "angle of decline":
"This missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck no bone
protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it traversed the
President's body. .... We concluded that this missile depicted in 385-C
which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and
made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland
Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound. .... The angle
which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our
point of entrance labeled 'C' on 385 and 'D' point of exit is one that
the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the
vertical." -- Dr. J.J. Humes; 1964
~~~~~~~~~~
When looking at some of Dr. Humes' other remarks (made at the ARRB
hearings on 02/13/1996), this following passage is worthy of noting,
re. the "parietal vs. occipital" debate:
Q. The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best you
recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp.
A. They went in every direction. I think I described them as stellate.
So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was lacerated.
Q. For the scalp?
A. Yes.
Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--
A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and
to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal.
Q. Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the
occipital bone?
A. No. No.
Q. None whatsoever?
A. No.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there's this interesting hunk of Humes' ARRB testimony re. the
rubber pad that was placed (per CTers) at the VERY BACK of JFK's head
by mortician Tom Robinson:
Q. You mentioned that there was a rubber dam in the embalming process.
Where was that located?
A. Well, it was not in the embalming process. When they got finished
embalming, we had to put--we didn't have to, but we helped them put the
scalp back together and the skull. And the defect that remained in the
skull--I can't now measure it specifically--was three or four or five
centimeters, something like that. And we used a rubber dam to cover
that part of the skull defect.
Q. And where was that located?
A. It was part of this large defect, and I can't tell you now exactly
where it was.
Q. When you say part of this large defect, you mean in the parietal
area?
A. Right.
~~~~~~~~~~
Continuing with Dr. Humes' feisty testimony to the ARRB in 1996....I
love this next portion re. the burning of the autopsy materials (go get
'em, Dr. H.!):
Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?
A. I don't recall. I don't know. There was no reason--see, we're
splitting hairs here, and I'll tell you, it's getting to me a little
bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to
hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed
version. So I burned everything else. Now, why I didn't burn the thing
that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or
whether it was the notes or what, I don't know. There was nothing left
when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now
have, period.
Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the
autopsy that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what the
exact circumstances--
A. I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an
aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard
to understand?
Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that
you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.
A. Right.
Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of--
A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what was
the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know. I
can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I apologize for that. But
that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't want anything to remain
that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might.
Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don't know. But it
doesn't make any difference because that was my decision and mine
alone. Nobody else's.
Q. Did you talk to anyone about your decision to--
A. No, absolutely not. No. It was my own materials. Why--I don't feel a
need to talk to anybody about it.
Q. Did the original notes that you created have any information with
respect to the estimated angle in which the bullet struck the
President?
A. Nothing different than what's in the final version.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Davey attempted to assert that the angle of the bullet was evidence for the SBT. But when the *ONLY* medical evidence concerning this trajectory is mentioned, Davey-boy goes spastic."
>
> The silly "45-degree" crap is NOT the "only" medical evidence
> concerning the SBT-like trajectory through JFK's body, you blind and
> isolating kook!!
>
> Read the whole freaking Warren Report and the TOTALITY of Dr. Humes
> testimony. Humes said (and the official autopsy report says) that there
> was a wound of entry on JFK's back that was "5.5 in. below the tip of
> the right mastoid process". And there was a wound of "exit" in the
> throat/neck at the place where Dr. Perry performed the trach at
> Parkland.
>
> The trach wound was not measured from any known body landmark,
> true....but these two holes, quite obviously, do NOT equate to an angle
> through the body of "45-60 degrees downward".
>
The 45-60 degree angle had nothing to do with the throat wound. They
didn't even know about the throat wound yet. It was just a first impression.
> And after just now attempting to find (via specific word-search tools)
> the words "45" and "60" in ANY of Dr. Humes' official under-oath
> testimony (WC, HSCA, and ARRB), it can be discovered that Dr. Humes
> never ONCE mentioned a steep angle of "45-60 degrees" at any of those
> official inquiries.
>
Try to pay attention.
> So, when and where did Humes ever say this? And to whom was it
> supposedly said? Please cite Humes' "45-60 degree" reference.
>
Humes said it in the autopsy room. Sibert and O'Neil quoted it in their
report of what Humes said.
And it was only a guess, not a measurement.
> The "pinky probe" is barely mentioned in his WC testimony at all.
> (There's one reference to "attempting to probe the wound with your
> finger" in the lengthy WC/Humes document. But nothing more is said
> about it.)
>
> I did find this one reference to "approx. 45 degrees" in Humes' WC
> testimony (but the number "60" never once appears within Humes'
> testimony):
>
S&O.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1149788953.1...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>>> It was *YOU* that made the assertion about the angle... and yet, you
>>> can't produce any citation, testimony, evidence, *NOTHING* that supports
>>> your assertion."
>> What a booby-hatcher you are.
>>
>> *I* didn't make any "assertion" about any "45-to-60-degree" angle. YOU
>> brought up those numbers....followed by an "Are you insane?" remark.
>> Remember??
>
> Yep... and if you were *knowledgeable* about the evidence, you'd know that the
> 45-60 degree angle IS THE ONLY ANGLE TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH BY DR HUMES, AND
> AGREED TO BY THE OTHERS PROSECTORS.
>
No, not testified to. Noted by Sibert and O'Neil in their report.
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>>> What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>>>> again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>>>
>>> Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>>>
>>> Great work Ben.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>
>> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
>> *are* evidence.
>>
>
>
> Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
> published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
> as published in the DTH?
>
>
Doesn't really matter. It's just a typical hollow challenge as usual.
BTW, it's "its" possessive, not "it's" contraction.
David VP
Yes, of course. I realize this. But Humes' FINAL REPORT (and subsequent
statements favoring the SBT) OVERRULE any and all "45-degree angle"
hunks of speculation/guesswork he might have engaged in at the autopsy.
Obviously, such a final report -- which has a transiting bullet going
through an area of JFK's body which isn't NEARLY on a 45-degree
downward path -- has to override any "45-degree" guess he might have
made via his pinky.
Only rabid CT kooks would look at the totality of evidence re. Humes
and the finished and more-complete autopsy report and decide that
Humes' "45-degree" statement(s) had any merit in the final analysis.*
* = "More-complete" obviously meaning: A Final Report which contained
all the necessary items of knowledge to reach a logical and reasonable
conclusion re. the President's wounds. CT kooks want to hold Humes to a
"45-degree" standard, with a back wound that did not transit at all.
But in the final analysis...when ALL the evidence was known to Humes
(and assessed while using some basic common sense for
accompaniment)...such a "45-degree" standard is not reasonable at all
(esp. when the "source" of any "45-degree" or "60-degree" gunshot wound
to JFK's back is considered....which, of course, is a
totally-non-existent source).
Anthony Marsh
>>> "45 to 60 degrees downward? Are you insane?"
>
> And just exactly HOW could JFK have had ANY wounds on him (or in him)
> that would have resulted in a "45-to-60-degree downward" bullet
> wound(s) through his body??
>
No, he didn't. Anyway. Not my theory, but theoretically if a bullet had
deflected off an overhead object it could create a downward 45 degree angle.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "The bullet hit the vertebra."
>
> Why do you say this, Tony? Verification would be nice.
>
See the X-ray. Talk to Baden.
> And any such "verification" from CT-Land would directly contradict the
> official autopsy report, which said that nothing solid was hit inside
> JFK's neck/back. Naturally, that report (signed by 3 doctors) is a pack
> of lies just because you say it is...right?
>
Here's a clue for you. Much of the evidence developed late directly
contradicts the official autopsy report.
David VP
Yeah...I can see your point.
Oswald shoots.....
The wildly-off-course bullet collides with a TWA Boeing 707 jetliner
having just departed from DFW International.....
The bullet then dives back down toward Dealey Plaza and President
Kennedy in the Presidential limousine (the bullet's intended target in
the first place).....
A 45-degree (or maybe even 60-degree) downward entry wound is achieved
on JFK's back via the DBT (Deflecting Boeing Theory).
(The Trans World Airlines four-engined jetliner, registration number
N245TW, made a safe emergency landing at Love Field, btw, after having
its fuel lines severed by Oswald's stray 6.5mm missile.)
(No chickens, wild geese, or hamsters were harmed in the making of the
above fictional tale. 129 irate San Francisco-bound TWA passengers were
mighty pissed-off, however.)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Davey attempted to assert that the angle of the bullet was evidence for
>> the SBT. But when the *ONLY* medical evidence concerning this trajectory
>> is mentioned, Davey-boy goes spastic."
>
>The silly "45-degree" crap is NOT the "only" medical evidence
>concerning the SBT-like trajectory through JFK's body, you blind and
>isolating kook!!
Yep, it is. It's the *only* angle that you're going to find that is based on a
primary examination of the body, and not based on speculation made after the
body was gone.
>Read the whole freaking Warren Report and the TOTALITY of Dr. Humes
>testimony.
I have. Do you somehow believe that the TOTALITY is going to say something
different?
>Humes said (and the official autopsy report says)
But you can't *believe* what the "official autopsy report" says. It clearly
puts a wound DEVOID of bone and scalp, extending into the occipital... where is
it? Show me on the BOH where this wound is. Show me on the lateral X-ray where
this wound is.
But you won't. You're a coward.
>that there
>was a wound of entry on JFK's back that was "5.5 in. below the tip of
>the right mastoid process". And there was a wound of "exit" in the
>throat/neck at the place where Dr. Perry performed the trach at
>Parkland.
>
>The trach wound was not measured from any known body landmark,
>true....but these two holes, quite obviously, do NOT equate to an angle
>through the body of "45-60 degrees downward".
Making presumptions, I see. As most lurkers know by now, connecting these two
entry wounds was a speculation made *after* the autopsy.
>And after just now attempting to find (via specific word-search tools)
>the words "45" and "60" in ANY of Dr. Humes' official under-oath
>testimony (WC, HSCA, and ARRB), it can be discovered that Dr. Humes
>never ONCE mentioned a steep angle of "45-60 degrees" at any of those
>official inquiries.
Bravo! You're *starting* to study the evidence. But you shouldn't use only
"word-search" tools... you should *READ* the testimony.
And just so you don't get too frustrated, try researching what Siebert & O'Neill
had to say.
>So, when and where did Humes ever say this?
During the autopsy.
>And to whom was it supposedly said?
Presumably, to Boswell and Finck. Who knows, maybe he was addressing Ebersole.
>Please cite Humes' "45-60 degree" reference.
Please cite Bugliosi's comments re: 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray.
>The "pinky probe" is barely mentioned in his WC testimony at all.
Therefore it never happened.
>(There's one reference to "attempting to probe the wound with your
>finger" in the lengthy WC/Humes document. But nothing more is said
>about it.)
Lied about it, no doubt...
>I did find this one reference to "approx. 45 degrees" in Humes' WC
>testimony (but the number "60" never once appears within Humes'
>testimony):
Nor does the symbol "-"
>SPECTER -- "Could you state for the record an approximation of the
>angle of decline?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees
>from the horizontal."
>
>Then, of course, there is the following testimony from Dr. Humes, which
>positively destroys his other "approx. 45 degree" statement regarding
>the "angle of decline":
You mean he lied about the 45 degrees, and told the truth when he was
speculating?
How odd!
>"This missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck no bone
>protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it traversed the
>President's body.
Of course, as modern day CAT scans prove, this isn't possible.
> .... We concluded that this missile depicted in 385-C
>which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and
>made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland
>Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound. .... The angle
>which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our
>point of entrance labeled 'C' on 385 and 'D' point of exit is one that
>the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the
>vertical." -- Dr. J.J. Humes; 1964
Untrue, as the HSCA concluded.
The evidence for the back wound being *LOWER* than the neck wound is quite
overwhelming.
>~~~~~~~~~~
>
>When looking at some of Dr. Humes' other remarks (made at the ARRB
>hearings on 02/13/1996), this following passage is worthy of noting,
>re. the "parietal vs. occipital" debate:
>
>Q. The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best you
>recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp.
>A. They went in every direction. I think I described them as stellate.
>So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was lacerated.
>Q. For the scalp?
>A. Yes.
>Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--
>A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and
>to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal.
>Q. Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the
>occipital bone?
>A. No. No.
>Q. None whatsoever?
>A. No.
The love of testimony and statements from many years later, compared to those
taken recent to the assassination, is common among LNT'ers.
The simple fact is that you cannot reconcile the autopsy report & eyewitness
accounts with the BOH photo, or lateral X-ray.
They contradict each other.
>~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Then there's this interesting hunk of Humes' ARRB testimony re. the
>rubber pad that was placed (per CTers) at the VERY BACK of JFK's head
>by mortician Tom Robinson:
>
>Q. You mentioned that there was a rubber dam in the embalming process.
>Where was that located?
>A. Well, it was not in the embalming process. When they got finished
>embalming, we had to put--we didn't have to, but we helped them put the
>scalp back together and the skull. And the defect that remained in the
>skull--I can't now measure it specifically--was three or four or five
>centimeters, something like that. And we used a rubber dam to cover
>that part of the skull defect.
>Q. And where was that located?
>A. It was part of this large defect, and I can't tell you now exactly
>where it was.
>Q. When you say part of this large defect, you mean in the parietal
>area?
>A. Right.
In complete contradiction to numerous other eyewitness accounts. Care to put
your "parietal" accounts together, and match them to the "parietal-occipital"
eyewitnesses?
>~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Continuing with Dr. Humes' feisty testimony to the ARRB in 1996....I
>love this next portion re. the burning of the autopsy materials (go get
>'em, Dr. H.!):
His actions mean little here... the official *response* to it speaks volumes.
Yep... he doesn't contradict his previous assertion of 45-60 degrees.
Of course, Dr. Humes also tries to assert that he was in complete control of the
autopsy - and we now know that this is a lie.
You may now snip and run, Davey-boy...
lazu...@webtv.net
enough.
Ben Holmes
>
>David VP wrote:
>>>>"Davey attempted to assert that the angle of the bullet was evidence for the
>>>>SBT. But when the *ONLY* medical evidence concerning this trajectory is
>>>>mentioned, Davey-boy goes spastic."
>>
>> The silly "45-degree" crap is NOT the "only" medical evidence
>> concerning the SBT-like trajectory through JFK's body, you blind and
>> isolating kook!!
>>
>> Read the whole freaking Warren Report and the TOTALITY of Dr. Humes
>> testimony. Humes said (and the official autopsy report says) that there
>> was a wound of entry on JFK's back that was "5.5 in. below the tip of
>> the right mastoid process". And there was a wound of "exit" in the
>> throat/neck at the place where Dr. Perry performed the trach at
>> Parkland.
>>
>> The trach wound was not measured from any known body landmark,
>> true....but these two holes, quite obviously, do NOT equate to an angle
>> through the body of "45-60 degrees downward".
>>
>
>The 45-60 degree angle had nothing to do with the throat wound. They
>didn't even know about the throat wound yet. It was just a first impression.
The 45-60 degree angle DID have to do with the back wound... I'm sure that Tony
has carefully tried to imply otherwise.
>> And after just now attempting to find (via specific word-search tools)
>> the words "45" and "60" in ANY of Dr. Humes' official under-oath
>> testimony (WC, HSCA, and ARRB), it can be discovered that Dr. Humes
>> never ONCE mentioned a steep angle of "45-60 degrees" at any of those
>> official inquiries.
>
>Try to pay attention.
Speaking in front of a mirror, Tony? Going to correct all the lurkers here with
your superior knowledge of the evidence, Tony?
>> So, when and where did Humes ever say this? And to whom was it
>> supposedly said? Please cite Humes' "45-60 degree" reference.
>
>Humes said it in the autopsy room. Sibert and O'Neil quoted it in their
>report of what Humes said.
>And it was only a guess, not a measurement.
And it *IS* the *ONLY* estimate of wound angle given as a part of a primary
examination of the body.
Davey-boy has long since snipped it, but his original assertion that this angle
supported the SBT is refuted beyond any hope of salvage.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1149788953.1...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>>> It was *YOU* that made the assertion about the angle... and yet, you
>>>> can't produce any citation, testimony, evidence, *NOTHING* that supports
>>>> your assertion."
>>> What a booby-hatcher you are.
>>>
>>> *I* didn't make any "assertion" about any "45-to-60-degree" angle. YOU
>>> brought up those numbers....followed by an "Are you insane?" remark.
>>> Remember??
>>
>> Yep... and if you were *knowledgeable* about the evidence, you'd know
>> that the 45-60 degree angle IS THE ONLY ANGLE TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH
>> BY DR HUMES, AND AGREED TO BY THE OTHERS PROSECTORS.
>
>No, not testified to. Noted by Sibert and O'Neil in their report.
I had left that as a trap for Davey-boy to fall into... along with something
else he's not figured out yet.
But the major point is still accurate, it *IS THE ONLY ANGLE THAT HAS ANY
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT*
And it doesn't support the SBT, as Davey-boy asserted.
>> You referenced this angle without knowing what it was.
>>
>> Rather stupid of you... so I pointed it out.
>>
>>
>>> Therefore, YOU must think that such an angle of 45-60 degrees (which
>>> YOU brought up, not I) must actually exist in this case. Otherwise why
>>> bring up these figures at all?
>>
>>
>> It *does* actually "exist" in this case. Feel free to review the
>> prosector's testimony.
>>
>>
>>> For time #3 now --- WHERE in DP could an assassin have been located to
>>> have caused such a steep entry wound on JFK's back?
>>
>> Who cares? *YOU* made the point about the angle. Interestingly, you've
>> snipped it from the post... why is that, I wonder?
>>
>> And surely, if you actually *know* the evidence, you'd also know why
>> it's silly to ask. LOL!!
Davey-boy still hasn't figured this out, nor; without a better grounding in the
evidence, will he.
>>> You're yellow, Benji-boy. How embarrassing it must be for you...
>>
>> I'm not the wone who refuses to answer questions, snips and runs all
>> the time. Coward, aren't you?
Speaking of cowards, Tony... when are you going to retract your lies about what
the autopsy report said?
David VP
Ben-The-Kook. Just gorgeous....and pattern-filled to the hilt with
CT-ism. Ben should be proud...he's gained first-rate "CT-Nuthatch"
status. (As if he didn't have that title already in 2005.)
Doctor Humes states to the WC that "mathematics is not my forte"...and
then takes a wild guess as to the "45 degree" angle that the bullets
took through JFK's body (lumping the head shot together with the SBT
shot re. the angles, btw).....
And Ben-Kook asserts that this guess re. the angle is to be relied on
as the absolute truth and Gospel re. the actual & true angle through
JFK's neck and back.
Classic.
It has evidently not occurred to BK (aka Ben-Kook) that when Humes
guessed at the "45 degrees" angle to the WC in 1964 (with no mention,
btw, made at all of the crazy "60-degree" angle though), Dr. Humes was
ALSO in favor of the bullet having transited JFK's neck and back as
stated in his own autopsy report. So, quite obviously, Humes was 100%
right -- i.e., mathematics certainly was NOT his "forte". (Not about
estimating angles at any rate.)
lazu...@webtv.net
the pike. If you were remotely an honest person and shown 98 ways to
sunday that you are wrong, partially right or dead ass wrong over and
over again you would concede something..just a little bit..once in a
blue moon.
David VP
You must be high of that Groden-Gas (again).
Do you, laz, just wait around to pounce to your King-Ben's side with
your continual say-nothing retorts to me?
Why not at least put in a WC quote once in a while....just for luck?
You look pretty pathetic and lap-doggish otherwise.
But...to each his own. :)
Ben Holmes
>
>Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>>> Vaughan says...
>>>> Ben,
>>>>
>>>>>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For once
>>>>> again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Great work Ben.
>>>>
>>>> Todd
>>>
>>>Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes, they
>>> *are* evidence.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
>> published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
>> as published in the DTH?
>>
>>
>
>Doesn't really matter. It's just a typical hollow challenge as usual.
>BTW, it's "its" possessive, not "it's" contraction.
'It's not evidence, it's really not evidence...', meanwhile, refusing to
actually look at the evidence...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> The 45-60 degree angle had nothing to do with the throat wound.
>
>Yes, of course. I realize this. But Humes' FINAL REPORT (and subsequent
>statements favoring the SBT) OVERRULE any and all "45-degree angle"
>hunks of speculation/guesswork he might have engaged in at the autopsy.
His "final report" was allegedly finished on 11/24/63. His testimony to the
commission was considerably later, in March of the following year.
So any implication that he'd changed the angle of the entering bullet in the
back is sheer nonsense.
>Obviously, such a final report -- which has a transiting bullet going
>through an area of JFK's body which isn't NEARLY on a 45-degree
>downward path -- has to override any "45-degree" guess he might have
>made via his pinky.
And considering that he testified long after the "final report" was supposedly
finished, your logic is backwards, isn't it?
>Only rabid CT kooks would look at the totality of evidence re. Humes
>and the finished and more-complete autopsy report and decide that
>Humes' "45-degree" statement(s) had any merit in the final analysis.*
Oh, I knew that you'd have to disregard it. What is truely funny is that you've
been rather conclusively rebutted on your assertion that the angle supports the
SBT - and yet, I know I'll see you say it again sometime in the future... for
LNT'ers never seem to learn.
>* = "More-complete" obviously meaning: A Final Report which contained
>all the necessary items of knowledge to reach a logical and reasonable
>conclusion re. the President's wounds. CT kooks want to hold Humes to a
>"45-degree" standard, with a back wound that did not transit at all.
>But in the final analysis...when ALL the evidence was known to Humes
>(and assessed while using some basic common sense for
>accompaniment)...such a "45-degree" standard is not reasonable at all
>(esp. when the "source" of any "45-degree" or "60-degree" gunshot wound
>to JFK's back is considered....which, of course, is a
>totally-non-existent source).
This is the normal LNT'er procedure... simply disregard anything that doesn't
fit the preconceived mold.
Rather dishonest... but what can you say? The 10% minority will always be with
us.
Ben Holmes
Here's a clue for you. Much of the evidence known right from the beginning
directly contradicts the BOH photo and lateral X-ray.
Tony doen't believe the autopsy report.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I'm loving these silly, rigid, never-bend-toward-common-sense posts by
>Ben-The-Kook. Just gorgeous....and pattern-filled to the hilt with
>CT-ism. Ben should be proud...he's gained first-rate "CT-Nuthatch"
>status. (As if he didn't have that title already in 2005.)
>
>Doctor Humes states to the WC that "mathematics is not my forte"...
This, of course, was what I was referring to several posts back. When you don't
read the testimony, you don't have a clue, do you?
What Davey-boy *still* refuses to do is provide *ANY* angle supported by a
medical examination that would "support" the SBT.
There simply isn't one. And I suspect that even Davey-boy knows that now.
>and
>then takes a wild guess as to the "45 degree" angle that the bullets
>took through JFK's body (lumping the head shot together with the SBT
>shot re. the angles, btw).....
>
>And Ben-Kook asserts that this guess re. the angle is to be relied on
>as the absolute truth and Gospel
When you're willing to lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that
you're a liar.
I've known all along about Humes "mathmatics is not my forte" comment.
>re. the actual & true angle through JFK's neck and back.
Didn't happen. There's no evidence based on a medical examination of transit.
This is speculation made after the fact.
>Classic.
>
>It has evidently not occurred to BK (aka Ben-Kook) that when Humes
>guessed at the "45 degrees" angle to the WC in 1964 (with no mention,
>btw, made at all of the crazy "60-degree" angle though),
Untrue. See the Siebert O'Neill report.
>Dr. Humes was
>ALSO in favor of the bullet having transited JFK's neck and back as
>stated in his own autopsy report.
Yep. A speculation, you keep forgetting to mention.
>So, quite obviously, Humes was 100%
>right -- i.e., mathematics certainly was NOT his "forte". (Not about
>estimating angles at any rate.)
And the point has been well driven home. You simply lied when you asserted that
this angle supported the SBT.
lazu...@webtv.net
the autopsy to the effect that they could find "no outlet" for the entry
wound in the upper back. They opened the chest and examined the pleural
linings, but could find no perforation. Now that particular exploration
is to be expected if the wound were in the back, not neck. OTOH, if the
wound actually were in the base of the neck, as LN revisionism places it
(so that the SBT would work), then don't you think that the statement
"cannot find an outlet" is utterly foolish when there is an obvious open
wound in the throat, only inches away from the one in the rear? Don't
you think it would occur to even the feeble-minded, that the dots could
easily be connected? The fact that it did not occur to the pathologists
is strong evidence that the wound was lower than C7/T1 by at least two
and a half inches, placing it at about T3, where they said it was
located.
David VP
I simply used a little thing called "common sense" when evaluating the
TOTALITY of the evidence in the case....instead of relying on an angle
guesstimate made by a doctor who admitted up front -- "mathematics is
not my forte".
I sure would hate to have a CTer named Ben on any "CSI"-type of
investigation. No crime would ever get solved.
Todd W. Vaughan
No, not really.
You claim the caption has evidentiary value.
As I said, I don't have the captions handy.
If you do, post their content and we can disuss them.
>
>
>
> >Then I'll tell you what Harry Cabluck told me about the caption to his
> >photo when I interviewed him back in the 1990's.
>
> Who cares???
Who cares?
You should. Cabluck was there.
He took one of the cationed photos.
Am I to understand that you don't care what he has to say about the
photo that he took and that someone else wrote the caption for?
>Unless he now admits that he lied.
Lied about what?
He didn't write the caption, numb-nuts.
>
>
> >> I find it interesting that *you* won't respond to the below rebuttal of
> >> Davey-boy's assertions either...
> >
> >
> >I'm dealing with this right now, is that OK with you?
>
>
> Just pointing out what a coward you are... nothing more. Most lurkers may
> recall the FBI intimidation posts that you've been ducking for quite some time
> now.
>
I'm under no obligation to "respond to the below rebuttal of
Davey-boy's assertions".
That you find it interesting that I did not respond only serves to
highlight your bizarre way of thinking.
>
> >> Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led to the LNT'er position... or does
> >> holding that position turn you *into* a coward?
> >>
> >> I'm sure that others would be interested in your thoughts on the matter...
> >
> >Coward.
>
That was my error. The "Coward." above was supposed to have read
"Coward?", and then lead into what I wrote below it.
>
> That's not an answer... once again: Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led
> to the LNT'er position... or does holding that position turn you *into* a
> coward?
>
>
> >Hmm, you've talked to Cabluck about all of this, right?
>
>
> Does *he* explain why LNT'ers always refuse to present this caption?
>
>
I don't know.
But what he did say was that the caption is not correct.
But of course you don't want to hear that, do you?
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Ben;
> The answer you seek has something to do with "30 pieces of Silver".
>
> The answer has a Great Deal to do with "Supporting Felons".
>
> The answer has a Great Deal to do with supporting "Coup d'Etat".
>
>
How come you've (you have) let the lies about Lee Bowers remain on your
website?
Is it because it is your intention to lie about what Bowers saw?
>
>
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:e689o...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > In article <1149737303.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> > Vaughan says...
> >>
> >>
> >>Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> In article <1149690342.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd
> >>> W.
> >>> Vaughan says...
> >>> >
> >>> >Ben,
> >>> >
> >>> >>What did the caption say, Tony? Please let all the lurkers know. For
> >>> >>once
> >>> >>again, you're lying about evidence in this case.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Ah, in Ben-World photo captions are evidence.
> >>> >
> >>> >Great work Ben.
> >>> >
> >>> >Todd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Interesting that no LNT'er is willing to provide the captions. And yes,
> >>> they
> >>> *are* evidence.
> >>
> >>
> >>Are you talking about the Harry Cabluck photograph and it's caption as
> >>published in the FWST, or the William Allen photograph and it's caption
> >>as published in the DTH?
> >
> >
> > Flip a coin, and provide the caption.
> >
> > I find it interesting that *you* won't respond to the below rebuttal of
> > Davey-boy's assertions either...
> >
> >
> > Tell us, Toddy... are cowards naturally led to the LNT'er position... or
> > does
> > holding that position turn you *into* a coward?
> >
> > I'm sure that others would be interested in your thoughts on the matter...
> >
> >
Robert Harris
>>> "You simply lied when you asserted that this angle supported the SBT."
>
>I simply used a little thing called "common sense" when evaluating the
>TOTALITY of the evidence in the case...
David, I have not been following this particular discussion, but an
angle is a very calculable factor, since we know the exact position of
the limousine and of the alleged snipers nest.
You do not caluclate angles via the "totality of the evidence in the
case". You use some very well known and elementary principles of
geometry to make the determination.
But if you really are concerned with the "totality" of the evidence
then you must conclude that there is an extremely good chance that the
the bullet which (IMO and yours) passed through both victims, came
from a weapon other than the MC that Oswald was alleged to have used.
Besides the fact that the people who handled the stretcher bullet
unanimously denied that it matched CE-399, the actual angles for a SB
at Z223, don't work very well from that 6th floor window in the
depository.
In fact, such a shot passing straight through Kennedy's back and neck,
should have hit JBC at or slightly to the left of his spine, rather
than at the right armpit.
The actual angle back to JFK from the armpit was about 3 degrees,
which points directly to the firescape on the Daltex building. A
trajectory from the third floor of that building, where James Braden
happened to be, would also strike JFK lower on the back, where most
researchers believe that bullet actually struck. This illustration
might make all this clearer for you:
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/sbt-dal.gif
Crimes are solved through VERY specific and detailed analysis, David -
not through sweeping and often unproven generalities.
Robert Harris
> .instead of relying on an angle
>guesstimate made by a doctor who admitted up front -- "mathematics is
>not my forte".
>
>I sure would hate to have a CTer named Ben on any "CSI"-type of
>investigation. No crime would ever get solved.
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
Sure. But that doesn't mean you just toss common sense out the window.
In the JFK case, there are various angles and trajectories that cannot
ever be determined right down to the Nth degree or inch -- e.g., the
exact position of JFK in relation to JBC in the car; the exact position
of JFK when he was struck by the SBT shot (OK, the "alleged" SBT shot),
because he was not in view of Zapruder's lens at all. Nor can the exact
location of the limo be determined when the first shot struck. It's a
"best guess" all the way around.
How on Earth can anybody think that Dale Myers (even if a CTer thinks
he has fudged his computer model a little bit one way or another) could
have possibly simulated a perfect SBT-favoring scenario via his
animation IF THE SBT WAS, IN FACT, SO FAR OFF THE BEAM TO BE DEEMED
UTTERLY "IMPOSSIBLE" BY CT PROPONENTS?
Even CTers must admit that Myers' model is not skewed to the point of
utter lunacy re. the angles, positions of the men, etc. If they do
believe that it's skewed crazily out-of-whack like that...those CTers
are severely in need of a mental tune-up IMO. Because the model WORKS
for the SBT, and the angles are representative of the likely trajectory
path through both victims, and the flight path that would take it back
up to the SN in the Depository.
That fact alone (whether Dale's figures are 100% accurate to the square
inch or not, which is not likely, as stated before, because not ALL of
the exact measuremants CAN be fully known, by CTers or LNers) should
cause a CTer to AT THE VERY LEAST admit to the "possibility" of the SBT
being a viable alternative to the way the shooting on Elm Street could
have conceivably occurred.
To think otherwise, as I've said 1,001 times before, is to believe that
a multi-bullet, multi-shooter scenario occurred in DP that almost
perfectly mimicked what the SBT would have done if given the chance via
just a SN's single bullet.
The odds of such a multi-bullet attack that mirrors in many ways just a
single-bullet event must certainly be off the charts in favor of "No
Way In Hell This Could Have Happened".
If the Z-Film did not exist, no one can say for sure what the final
official conclusion re. the shooting would have been (with respect to
the "SBT" wounds on the victims).
But I truly believe, via common sense, that even without the Z-Film to
aid the WC, et al, that the SBT would have been officially adopted.
This is due to the many factors that favor no other non-SBT conclusion
being the likely-to-be-accurate one -- e.g., lack of bullets; lack of
limo damage in back seat; probable "tumbling" bullet entering Connally;
general SBT-like alignment of the victims; no other victims in car
besides JFK & JBC; lack of a valid, commonsense reason for any
bullet(s) to have suddenly stopped forward motion through JFK's
back/neck.
It continues to boggle my mind as to how many people scoff at the ONE &
ONLY likely-to-be-correct scenario for the simultaneous wounding of
Kennedy & Connally -- the Single-Bullet Scenario.
Robert Harris
Tell me something David.
When is the last time you admitted to the possilbiity that multiple
snipers were involved in the attack?
When did you admit the possibility that the SBT shot (assuming there
was one) might very well have been fired from a different location?
When did you admit that silenced weapons might have been used in the
attack?
When did you admit to the enormous evidence and testimony which
indicates that a single assassin could not have fired all the shots
alone?
David, you wouldn't even admit to the visible damage at the rear of
Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film.
Tell me David, are you really sure you have a right to be lecturing
anyone on the subject of being open minded?
Robert Harris
>
>To think otherwise, as I've said 1,001 times before, is to believe that
>a multi-bullet, multi-shooter scenario occurred in DP that almost
>perfectly mimicked what the SBT would have done if given the chance via
>just a SN's single bullet.
>
>The odds of such a multi-bullet attack that mirrors in many ways just a
>single-bullet event must certainly be off the charts in favor of "No
>Way In Hell This Could Have Happened".
>
>If the Z-Film did not exist, no one can say for sure what the final
>official conclusion re. the shooting would have been (with respect to
>the "SBT" wounds on the victims).
>
>But I truly believe, via common sense, that even without the Z-Film to
>aid the WC, et al, that the SBT would have been officially adopted.
>This is due to the many factors that favor no other non-SBT conclusion
>being the likely-to-be-accurate one -- e.g., lack of bullets; lack of
>limo damage in back seat; probable "tumbling" bullet entering Connally;
>general SBT-like alignment of the victims; no other victims in car
>besides JFK & JBC; lack of a valid, commonsense reason for any
>bullet(s) to have suddenly stopped forward motion through JFK's
>back/neck.
>
>It continues to boggle my mind as to how many people scoff at the ONE &
>ONLY likely-to-be-correct scenario for the simultaneous wounding of
>Kennedy & Connally -- the Single-Bullet Scenario.
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
Saturday, February 28, 1981 (3:44 PM EST) -- while reading some
loony-toon book written by David S. Lifton, all about a nutsville plot
about body-altering surgery and casket-switching. That book was enough
for me to KNOW that the LN premise just might be a much better starting
point to begin my JFK research.
>> "When did you admit the possibility that the SBT shot (assuming there was one) might very well have been fired from a different location?"
Never. Why should I admit to such a highly-unlikely possibility? Three
rifle shells were found in the building from where the SBT path lines
up....Oswald's rifle was found in that same building....and that same
building featured the only person who was seen firing a weapon at the
President.
Different location indeed.
But if CTers feel there's some crime-solving advantage by PRETENDING
that another shooting location existed on 11/22/63, then by all
means....they should indulge themselves (and, of course, they have,
big-time -- placing imaginary assassins in just about every building
and Knoll and sewer lining Dealey Plaza).
We should never let the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of "three shots only from the
TSBD's SN" get in the way of a good-looking, movie-theater-filling,
kook-filled conspiracy theory (that's always been my motto). ;)
>> "When did you admit that silenced weapons might have been used in the attack?"
Never. The evidence never supported such a notion. And even most CTers
do not support such a (guesswork) notion. (See above response too for
more reasons.)
>> "When did you admit to the enormous evidence and testimony which indicates that a single assassin could not have fired all the shots alone?"
And an even MORE ENORMOUS wealth of overall evidence of all types
indicates that only one shooter WAS involved. When was it that you,
Bob, have "admitted" to that possibility yourself?
>> "David, you wouldn't even admit to the visible damage at the rear of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film."
That's because I see no "visible damage" at the BOH in the
Z-Film....that's probably why I haven't admitted to it.
>> "Tell me David, are you really sure you have a right to be lecturing anyone on the subject of being open minded?"
I feel an "Oh brother!" coming on....and here it is.....
Oh brrrr.........!