NOVEMBER 22, 1963 --- "LN" FACTS AND COMMON SENSE, INSTEAD OF "CT" FICTION AND NONSENSE
David VP
VARIOUS D.V.P.-AUTHORED ESSAYS AND COMMENTS REVOLVING AROUND THE 1963
JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER
J.D. TIPPIT:
----------------------------
THE WARREN COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b8dae7b150da043
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL "CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE" TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
THE ABSURDITIES OF THE "OSWALD-AS-PATSY" CONSPIRACY PLOT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MOTIVES FOR KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800
EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4dd73f8e676a5db8
JIM GARRISON WAS DEAD WRONG (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
JIM GARRISON WAS DEAD WRONG (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
MORE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" TALK (COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
YET ANOTHER "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" ESSAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
STILL MORE "SBT" LOGIC (TONGUE-IN-CHEEK STYLE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/12f589407f8baf66
JOHN CONNALLY IN 1967 SAID THE "SBT" IS POSSIBLE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- WITNESS TO A TRAGEDY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/23a82b5e83ce0ff6
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS CRAZY JFK THEORY?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
JFK CONSPIRACY THEORIES GALORE (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5ac4a7c8a086bb36
JFK CONSPIRACY THEORIES GALORE (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/43e50295440e48b0
HOW TO FRAME A LONE PATSY FOR JFK'S MURDER (AND HOW NOT TO DO IT):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4466b08f8be7c36
WAS LEE OSWALD "PLACED" IN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BY PLOTTERS?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
SOLID VALIDATION THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
THE WARREN REPORT -- IT MAKES PERFECT "LN" SENSE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6577daadba0e46a4
MUSICAL CASKETS AND THE "BODY-ALTERATION" SILLINESS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
"WELL, THEY SAY IT JUST TAKES A SECOND TO DIE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ff403dedacb5d4f
THE "BACKYARD PHOTOS" OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- REAL OR FAKE?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
THE "CRYSTAL-BALL-GAZING" CONSPIRATORS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/747e6695f071ec3f
LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS A LIAR -- EXAMINING HIS MANY LIES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
THE IMPORTANT AND OFTEN-OVERLOOKED WITNESS STATISTICS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
"FINAL VERDICT" BY VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
BOOK REVIEW -- "THE JFK MYTHS" BY LARRY M. STURDIVAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d505fe064fccafb
BOOK REVIEW -- "WITH MALICE" BY DALE K. MYERS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bdb7e56f0427853
BOOK REVIEW -- "THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT" BY JIM BISHOP:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5bfef3e64392e4d
BOOK REVIEW -- "NATIONAL NIGHTMARE" BY RICHARD TRASK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/48c19f6f3b9122d6
BOOK REVIEW -- "THAT DAY IN DALLAS" BY RICHARD TRASK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3184c6735973d209
MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- OLIVER STONE'S "JFK" (99% LIES):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
DVD REVIEW -- "THE MURDER OF JFK: A REVISIONIST HISTORY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/127162626b4861d0
REVIEW -- "THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION: BEYOND CONSPIRACY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/869ebe2de53cbb58
REVIEW -- "JFK II: THE BUSH CONNECTION" --- COMPLETE RUBBISH!:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5a5eeae1e135fd1
REVIEW -- "THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f0a3e91565c5c2cf
LIST OF JFK-RELATED VIDEOS, DVDs, BOOKS, AND CDs:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c4caef920ae6a0d
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>FROM AN LNer's POINT-OF-VIEW..............
>
>VARIOUS D.V.P.-AUTHORED ESSAYS AND COMMENTS REVOLVING AROUND THE 1963
>JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER
>J.D. TIPPIT:
What you won't find, of course, is Davey-boy answering any refutations of his
omissions, misrepresentations, and lies.
An opinion that relies on omissions, misrepresentations, and lies, and can't be
defended... isn't much of an opinion
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
aeffects
The Good Reverend Roger
lazu...@webtv.net
mass postings doesn't make the SBT any more feasible, nor the
Neuromuscularjeteffectwhatchmacallit any more plausible- and when LHO
is in contact with some dozen intell assets it doesn't make him a lone
nut.
The Good Reverend Roger
If there was more than one Oswald, then he wasn't a lone nut, was he?
David VP
of the stack....unread....and unresponded to? That was my fervent
desire. But, naturally, the kookatics have to invade every common-sense
post/thread with meaningless drivel.
Thanks.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Why couldn't you CT kooks have just let this thread drop to the bottom
>of the stack....unread....and unresponded to? That was my fervent
>desire.
Of *course* it is. I'm quite sure that you'd prefer to live in the dream world
where your theories are acknowledged, and never disputed - particularly when you
have *no answer* to the refutations.
But no-one ever said life is fair (to you)...
If you omit, misrepresent, and lie - you'll just have to figure that someone is
going to speak up.
>But, naturally, the kookatics have to invade every common-sense
>post/thread with meaningless drivel.
So "meaningless", that you are forced to snip and run...
>Thanks.
My pleasure...
David VP
Mainly, the CT drivel is meaningless because it's being spouted by the
resident drivel-spouter -- aka: Ben "Drivel Spouter" Holmes.
Be proud of your badge of honor as a Drivel-Spouter. Pretty soon you'll
be in Jim Garrison's league. (Granted, that'll take a few years...but
hang in there...you'll make it.)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> So "meaningless", that you are forced to snip and run...
>
>Mainly, the CT drivel is meaningless because it's being spouted by the
>resident drivel-spouter -- aka: Ben "Drivel Spouter" Holmes.
And you can't respond to it.
>Be proud of your badge of honor as a Drivel-Spouter. Pretty soon you'll
>be in Jim Garrison's league.
Yep... he was getting so close that the CIA and other government agencies
actively conspired against him.
>(Granted, that'll take a few years...but
>hang in there...you'll make it.)
Oh, I post things frequently that you can't respond to. Gutless coward, aren't
you?
The Good Reverend Roger
Wow. I'm kinda on the fence about the whole conspiracy thing, but
you're a prize ass.
Just saying.
David VP
Well.....nobody's perfect.
David VP
BOOK REVIEW -- "A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" BY MARK FUHRMAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Addendum to top post...........
>
>
>BOOK REVIEW -- "A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" BY MARK FUHRMAN:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
Of course, if Davey-boy is given the opportunity to defend these "facts" against
CT'ers evidence, testimony, and citation - he can't do it. He's demonstrated
this over and over again.
David VP
can latch onto ANY "conspiracy" angle in the JFK & Tippit cases -- he
will do so, without so much as batting an eye and asking himself "Does
this CT make any sense at all?".
Even if theories CONFLICT and CONTRADICT each other, Ben and other
CTers will still embrace them as Gospel.
Ever wonder why that is? I think I know.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>And Ben-boy has demonstrated (over & over again repeatedly) that if he
>can latch onto ANY "conspiracy" angle in the JFK & Tippit cases -- he
>will do so, without so much as batting an eye and asking himself "Does
>this CT make any sense at all?".
Silly, and not supportable by the facts. There are any number of CT theories
that I regard as unsupportable, and not worth discussion.
But facts have never been a primary concern of Davey-boy, have they?
>Even if theories CONFLICT and CONTRADICT each other, Ben and other
>CTers will still embrace them as Gospel.
>
>Ever wonder why that is? I think I know.
When you start with false premises, you reach false conclusions.
It *IS* a fact, however, that you're incapable of responding to evidence,
testimony, and citation without snipping.
David VP
Would one of those be the "LET'S TRY TO FRAME A SINGLE PATSY BY PELTING
JFK WITH TONS OF BULLETS FROM MANY SHOOTERS" theory?
Because if that biggie ain't on your "unsupportable" list, perhaps you
ought to think about adding it.
Ben Holmes
Davey-boy again shows his cowardice by snipping everything...
In article <1148152656.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Unfortunately for you, Davey-boy; the eyewitness testimony *does* support
multiple shooters from different locations. The original Z-film also provided
support for what was certainly the case.
When you can't refute such testimony and evidence, it merely shows what a poor
side you've chosen to defend.
But, it's clear that you can't even support your own words... you were forced to
snip them - lest it become clear that I've proven them false.
David VP
No....it actually does not.
You just think it does.
And Vince B. will have quite a bit to say about that CTer misconception
in "Final Verdict". I'd advise turning those pages when made available.
You'll then be free of the albatross. (Won't that be swell, Benji? I'd
certainly think so.)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> The eyewitness testimony *does* support multiple shooters from different
>> locations."
>
>No....it actually does not.
>You just think it does.
Only by calling them mistaken, liars, or worse.
For the simple historical fact is that many of the eyewitnesses placed shooters
where *YOU* don't think they existed.
That's simply historical fact.
>And Vince B. will have quite a bit to say about that CTer misconception
>in "Final Verdict". I'd advise turning those pages when made available.
>You'll then be free of the albatross. (Won't that be swell, Benji? I'd
>certainly think so.)
As I've previously stated, it will be fun if and when his book comes out - it
will once again drive home the point that the WC's theory cannot be supported
without misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>The following post is from Steve Barber ...
Then Stephanie can ask me himself...
David VP
I doubt if he'll want to dive that deep into your shit-pit.
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... snip snip... Coward, aren't you?
In article <1148270082....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Then he can ask me himself..."
curtj...@webtv.net
Therein lies your problem. You somehow already have attached yourself
to a public figure ala groupie style. Vincent, the proud
sensationalist, thinks that since he stuck to the Manson case and was
able to unravel the mindset of a sicko, is somehow Sherlock Holmes
personified. Unfortunately, the Manson case was virtually a no-brainer
with the clues the left and the lifestyles they led. Basically anybody
could have solved the case that had any energy to profile the commune
inhabitors from Spahn Ranch.
Unfortunately too, since you have such a fanatical magnetism toward
Vincie, you are unable to come up with any evidence when you are
confronted time and again. When it gets too hot, David runs, runs, and
runs, for sometimes weeks on end. Pity.
CJ
David VP
A question: Do you think the SBT is a crock of crap?
If the answer is "Yes, I do" -- then would you be good enough to fill
my meager brain with the scenario of WHAT REPLACES THE SBT?
Sure would be nice to read a bullet-by-bullet anti-SBT scenario that at
least isn't liable to make a person bust out laughing. Can you manage
that? Or is that question "too hot", making you feel like running?
Pity.
And this quote from CJ is simply mind-boggling in its stupidity ---
"You are unable to come up with any evidence when you are confronted
time and again." -- CJ; 05/22/06
--- The above quote is an especially silly one in light of the reams of
stuff ("evidence" included) I've posted here re. the whole JFK case:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9aa66b7b2919be8d
curtj...@webtv.net
> CJ ---
>
> A question: Do you think the SBT is a crock of crap?
>
two people? Obviously it 'was a piece of crap' until they decided
'crap' had to do, hence Specter's new theory had to do.
> If the answer is "Yes, I do" -- then would you be good enough to fill
> my meager brain with the scenario of WHAT REPLACES THE SBT?
>
All the holes and bones being accounted for as well as lead in the
body. It's like asking if there are more than one theories, say
conspiracy theories, then the LNT must be true.
> Sure would be nice to read a bullet-by-bullet anti-SBT scenario that at
> least isn't liable to make a person bust out laughing. Can you manage
> that? Or is that question "too hot", making you feel like running?
First get the witnesses, get the holes right, and the too many
projectiles, then you can start with any theory you like. The only
problem is the SBT scenario won't do.
> Pity.
>
> And this quote from CJ is simply mind-boggling in its stupidity ---
>
> "You are unable to come up with any evidence when you are confronted
> time and again." -- CJ; 05/22/06
>
Hey, I like it. It seems to be well uh, absolutely true when I have
spent much time typing away in some of these threads, and your name
doesn't seem to come around to respond. If you do a 'profile' you will
be able to pull it up, or any lurker for that matter.
> --- The above quote is an especially silly one in light of the reams of
> stuff ("evidence" included) I've posted here re. the whole JFK case:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9aa66b7b2919be8d
I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part.
CJ
David VP
Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
soon-to-be kooks).
But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
of what anyone thinks or "disputes".
And --- Where's that bullet-by-bullet SBT replacement? I must have
missed that in your last say-nothing response.
Naturally (as usual), a CTer offers up NO alternate explanation to the
SBT....at all. Just saying "It's Impossible" seems to be good enough to
debunk it in most CTers' eyes. A very curious stance from a "research"
and "get-to-the-truth" POV.
But, it's all we're ever likely to see. A pity.
curtj...@webtv.net
David VP wrote:
> >> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."
>
> Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
> they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
> soon-to-be kooks).
>
magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be
concerning this case. The fact is one or ten people could have been
shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings.
> But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
> of what anyone thinks or "disputes".
>
Well you keep coming back with more. After several have taken you
apart post by post, topic by topic, it's no wonder that after time we
call just stay away.
> And --- Where's that bullet-by-bullet SBT replacement? I must have
> missed that in your last say-nothing response.
>
Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the
sixth floor and anything above the waste. You have no proof that the
hole went to the other side as told by numerous probers. Of course all
avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when
unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney. You have a wound of entry
circa Connally's armpit. You probably have two bullets for Connally
with all the damage that 'they' did. The amount of lead left in the
body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet. You have about 12
witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grass knoll.
You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's
brain which would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that
could have been fired from an MC. You have unison from Parkland
doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two doctors there say it
was lodged in the chest or lung. You have a host of people that have a
huge hole sighting in the back, lower portion of JFK's head which would
not do well for a shot from the rear to have that hole made. The list
is endless, and it's stuff you have failed to say anything more than
your hackneyed opinions on.
> Naturally (as usual), a CTer offers up NO alternate explanation to the
> SBT....at all. Just saying "It's Impossible" seems to be good enough to
> debunk it in most CTers' eyes. A very curious stance from a "research"
> and "get-to-the-truth" POV.
>
> But, it's all we're ever likely to see. A pity.
We don't have to be united in all medical aspects. When the SBT is
patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a greater
possibility of multiple shooters.
CJ
David VP
And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>> "The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings."
Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the witness who
can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
>> "Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor and anything above the waste [sic]."
WTF??
HUH??
Another "WTF?".
Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.
>> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
Only basic common sense....plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....plus the
LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
through the neck. That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
that the bullet positively passed through the body.
Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
Report. Right? And we should ignore common sense too. Right? And common
sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.
>> "Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
Proof please.
You have none (as per usual).
>> "You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they' did."
Proof please.
You have none (as per usual).
In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
11/22...and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.
Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
right?
You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.
With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
{1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
Amazing.
>> "The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet."
Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
anyhow).
>> "You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grassy knoll."
And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.
>> "You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's brain which would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that could have been fired from an MC."
And the autopsy report said what now?
Any mention of MORE than just a single bullet hit JFK in the head from
the rear? (With a fragment in JFK's head being linked to Oswald's
gun....plus the two large fragments in the car linked to LHO's
gun....with no other guns linked to this crime via fragments.)
Let's just ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-All evidence and go with some
"snowstorm" guesswork...shall we? OK. Great. Let's do that. You seem to
like that half-baked approach.
>> "You have unison from Parkland doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two doctors there say it was lodged in the chest or lung."
So what? Who cares? Means zilch.
Because .... DID a bullet "lodge in the chest or lung"?
Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-rayed
and what was discovered in his body??
Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).
But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
CT purposes.
>> "You have a host of people that have a huge hole sighting in the back, lower portion of JFK's head which would not do well for a shot from the rear to have that hole made."
And just exactly WHERE would the killer have been located within DP to
have caused that BOH hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head?
Answer -- Certainly NOT the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area....that is
for sure.
So....WHERE was this unseen assassin who created that FAR-RIGHT-REAR
hole in JFK's head? Where? And if you answer "Grassy Knoll"...a lot of
'splainin' is gonna be needed to justify that weird trajectory, which
has a bullet hitting JFK in the right temple (right?)...and exiting in
the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of his head (right?).
Good luck explaining that zig-zagging magic missile.
>> "When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a greater possibility of multiple shooters."
Bullshit. The SBT is a bona fide fact. And every re-creation or
animated "test" that has been performed since '63 has had the SBT
passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying colors, and everybody
knows it.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."
>
>Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
>they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
>soon-to-be kooks).
>
>But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
>of what anyone thinks or "disputes".
And when it's rebutted, you run away. Davey-boy, don't imagine for one moment
that people haven't figured this out.
>And --- Where's that bullet-by-bullet SBT replacement? I must have
>missed that in your last say-nothing response.
A number of reasonable scenarios have been offered, beginning back with SSID.
Rebut it if you can.
>Naturally (as usual), a CTer offers up NO alternate explanation to the
>SBT....at all.
Untrue, as I've pointed out before. Why lie about it?
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >> "I think most readers here will dispute 'the evidence' part."
>
> Naturally, CTers will disagree and dispute it....because
> they're...well...duh...CTers (some kooks; some semi-kooks, and some
> soon-to-be kooks).
>
> But, I've offered up gobs of "evidence" within my LN posts, regardless
> of what anyone thinks or "disputes".
you have gobs of WHAT? Best I've seen from you is; snip & run, quote
the WCR, snip & run....by-the-pound --- roflmao!
David VP
You've "rebutted" nothing I've presented. Nothing.
You think too much of your "rebutting" skills, BH. Way too much.
Just because you've said an LN point has been "rebutted" or "debunked"
-- it isn't automatically so. Esp. regarding the Tippit crime, which
any fool can see was committed by LHO (even most CT-Kooks).
All rabid CTers who want to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
re. the Tippit slaying are truly repulsive IMO...and only make
themselves look totally foolish with respect to the REST of their
pro-CT JFK arguments as well.
David VP
And, naturally, the WCR is to be treated as Charmin by everybody
researching the JFK murder...correct?? There's not a word of truth in
the WCR, is there? Only pure crap on all 888 pages.
Why of COURSE that's correct. What else could we expect from a
Rabid-Kook?
And as for Mr. AEffects -- anybody yet seen a substantive post from
this guy in 2006? Or 2005? If there's been one, I must have been
looking the other way at the time.
And, per the norm, AE's last post is true to form -- i.e., it says
nothing...as per usual.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."
>
> And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
> OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
> THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>
>
>>> "The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings."
>
> Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the witness who
> can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
> multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
> Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
>
>
Show me the third bullet. You accept the WC fiction that one bullet
missed. Show me that bullet.
>>> "Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor and anything above the waste [sic]."
>
> WTF??
> HUH??
> Another "WTF?".
>
> Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.
>
>
>>> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
>
> Only basic common sense....plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....plus the
> LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
> through the neck. That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
> that the bullet positively passed through the body.
>
Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet
passing through the body. They merely guessed.
> Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
> Report. Right? And we should ignore common sense too. Right? And common
> sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.
>
>
>>> "Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>
As much as Humes's guess that the intact bullet fell out of the
President's back during heart massage.
>
>>> "You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they' did."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>
> In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
> one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
> 11/22...and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
> also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.
>
Funny, isn't it then, that Humes thought that Connally was hit by two
bullets? You know, the Humes YOU cite as an authority.
> Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
> anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
> right?
>
Almost everyone in the conference thought that.
> You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
> just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
> case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.
You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC
said missed.
>
> With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
> foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
>
With each message, you and other WC apologists reveal that you are not
familiar with the evidence.
> You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
> more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
> {1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
> Amazing.
>
>
>>> "The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet."
>
> Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
> half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
Probably? You have no basis for making such a claim.
> junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
> you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
> anyhow).
>
>
>>> "You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grassy knoll."
>
> And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
> when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
> shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.
>
Just one SS agent who could not have been there.
Anthony Marsh
> David VP wrote:
>> CJ ---
>>
>> A question: Do you think the SBT is a crock of crap?
>>
> Yes. For starters, how many cases do you have a bullet going through
> two people? Obviously it 'was a piece of crap' until they decided
> 'crap' had to do, hence Specter's new theory had to do.
>
There have been a very few cases of one bullet going through two people.
So what?
David VP
Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
11/23). So what?
But it was an EDUCATED guess (to conclude that the bullet transited the
neck, which it so obviously did). The alternative is so ridiculous it
should make CTers blush with embarrassment at even suggesting such
"multiple-bullets-that-hit-nothing-but-stop-dead-anyway" nonsense.
But -- Why believe the obvious, when you could be a "CT Nuthatch"?
Right?
>> "You accept the WC fiction that one bullet missed. Show me that bullet."
LOL. It's classic, isn't it?
Quite obviously a MISSED bullet is very likely not going to be
RECOVERABLE. Only a ding-a-ling would have posted what you've posted
above.
>> "You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC said missed."
And tell me again how my not being able to produce the one "missed
shot" bullet is supposed to make a CTer's theory re. their supposed
"missing bullets" any more believable and viable by their not being
able to produce up to FOUR TIMES that number of AWOL missiles??!!
I must have missed the logic of that brilliant analogy, which is CTer
logic that seems to imply the following ---
"BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH THE *ONE* MISSING BULLET THAT YOU SAY
MISSED THE WHOLE CAR, WHY SHOULD WE CONSPIRACISTS BE EXPECTED TO COME
UP WITH UP TO FOUR TIMES THAT NUMBER OF MISSING PROJECTILES ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS CASE....*NONE* OF WHICH "MISSED" AT ALL (PER KOOK-STER C.T.
ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENT) -- BUT, INSTEAD, ALL OF THESE MISSING C.T.
BULLETS (WHICH MUST REPLACE THE CE399 S.B.T. BULLET) ACTUALLY *HIT*
VICTIMS IN THE CAR AND THEN DISAPPEARED AFTER CAUSING BODILY INJURIES
TO TWO DIFFERENT MEN!"
Better re-think that one, Tony. Because I wouldn't want to face a jury
with that kind of oddball CTer logic in court.
David VP
~Huge LOL~
Sure, Humes is an "authority" on JFK's autopsy. But does that make him
an expert or an "authority" on John Connally (a person he never once
examined) and his injuries?
Puh-lease!
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >> "Best I've seen from you is ... quote the WCR..."
>
> And, naturally, the WCR is to be treated as Charmin by everybody
> researching the JFK murder...correct?? There's not a word of truth in
> the WCR, is there? Only pure crap on all 888 pages.
we feel your pain, defending the WCR and what all
> Why of COURSE that's correct. What else could we expect from a
> Rabid-Kook?
>
> And as for Mr. AEffects -- anybody yet seen a substantive post from
> this guy in 2006? Or 2005? If there's been one, I must have been
> looking the other way at the time.
i suspect you've missed nothing I've posted on JFK forums
> And, per the norm, AE's last post is true to form -- i.e., it says
> nothing...as per usual.
yet you continue to respond, must be in the hopes the thrashing you've
taken from certain quarters here, goes unnoticed. we know your game...
David VP
awaits.
>> "I suspect you've missed nothing I've posted on JFK forums."
What's to "miss"?
Every post you make is as empty as a baseball stadium in December.
Ben Holmes
My crystal ball is telling me that Davey-boy will be too cowardly to answer this
post without snipping.
*********************************************************************
In article <1148332076.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>>>"There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever
>>>you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."
>
>And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
>OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
>THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>
>
>>>"The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount
>>>of buildings and surroundings."
>
>Sure. But where's the evidence
It's been given many times. As merely one example, the photo showing a bullet
being dug out of the grass.
The many eyewitnesses who reported things you can't believe, for another.
>(the bullets, the guns, the witness who
>can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
>multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
>Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
And yet, each time the evidence is listed and cited, you snip and run away...
wonder why?
>>>"Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor
>>>and anything above the waste [sic]."
>
>WTF??
>HUH??
>Another "WTF?".
>
>Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.
Why you can't answer it is another. A bullet going in the back around T3 or T4
isn't going to come out of the throat - no matter *how* much you think JFK was
leaning.
It's going to come out of his *chest*. If, of course, there *was* a transit.
But the best medical evidence is that there *WAS NO TRANSIT*, isn't it?
>>> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
>
>Only basic common sense....
And, yet, no proof at all. And *certainly* no medical evidence... which all
indicates that there was *NO* transit.
Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?
>plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....
Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a
shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't...
>plus the
>LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
>through the neck.
It wouldn't have gone through the neck in any case. It entered far too low in
the back to have exited the neck. And, in any case, the first and best medical
evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?
>That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course,
*IMPOSSIBLE* to reconcile to the BOH photo.
>that the bullet positively passed through the body.
No, this was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy,
as you well know.
>Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
>Report. Right?
*YOU* have to. You can't admit that the head wound contradicts the BOH photo.
>And we should ignore common sense too. Right?
Speculation? Absolutely... we *should* ignore it. Try basing your arguments on
the evidence instead.
>And common
>sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.
And the medical evidence tells everyone exactly the opposite.
>>>"Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when
>>>unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
>
>Proof please.
>You have none (as per usual).
This is, of course, what the *first* autopsy concluded.
And the evidence for this can't be disputed by you.
>>>"You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they'
>>>did."
>
>Proof please.
Try Dr. Shaw's testimony:
Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be
giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the
same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until
today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of
the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES - Oh, yes; we haven't. come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.
>You have none (as per usual).
Untrue... you are pretty stupid to suggest that a CT'er has no evidence. It's
usually quite the opposite... CT'ers with citations, and LNT'ers with
speculations disguised as "common sense".
>In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
>one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
>11/22...
Okay... I'll accept that. As long as you willingly admit that Shaw was also
quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had
entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was
removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital here the autopsy was performed."
Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the "Houston Post" that
"The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck.
Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to
someone."
But, of course, you won't.
So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted
with far more explanation, and under oath?
>and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
>also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.
No, it doesn't support your theory at all.
>Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
>anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
>right?
Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those
treating Connally - he could have been struck by as many as *3* shots... and Dr.
Shaw didn't find it "monstrously-silly" to so consider.
>You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
>just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
>case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.
Quite logical. The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear. When you're
the one in charge of an "investigation", you can make the "investigation" find
any conclusions you care to.
>With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
>foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
With each failure to respond to an entire post without snipping it to pieces,
you illustrate your inability to deal with historical fact.
>You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
>more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
>{1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
>Amazing.
Not amazing at all. Hoover had the "solution", his agents made sure that they
kept their jobs.
>>>"The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine
>>>bullet."
>
>Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
>half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
>junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
>you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
>anyhow).
Even Bugliosi isn't going to be able to get around the eyewitness testimony.
He'll be forced to spout the same nonsense about eyewitness testimony as all
LNT'ers do.
>>>"You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the
>>>grassy knoll."
>
>And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
>when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
>shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.
Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?
And, of course, they *did* run into people there. At least one of whom promptly
produced an ID that couldn't have been there...
>>>"You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's brain which
>>>would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that could have been fired
>>>from an MC."
>
>And the autopsy report said what now?
We don't know. It was burned in a fireplace... remember?
>Any mention of MORE than just a single bullet hit JFK in the head from
>the rear?
Evidently - as the prosectors put one in the EOP, and the Clark Panel and HSCA
putting a bullet four inches higher.
>(With a fragment in JFK's head being linked to Oswald's
>gun....
Oh?
>plus the two large fragments in the car linked to LHO's
>gun....with no other guns linked to this crime via fragments.)
With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other
fragments.
>Let's just ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-All evidence and go with some
>"snowstorm" guesswork...shall we? OK. Great. Let's do that. You seem to
>like that half-baked approach.
It is, of course, still on a physical piece of evidence, the X-ray.
>>>"You have unison from Parkland doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two
>>>doctors there say it was lodged in the chest or lung."
>
>So what? Who cares? Means zilch.
Yep... to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically trained doctors on a topic
that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory".
>Because .... DID a bullet "lodge in the chest or lung"?
Quite probably. Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the
need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occured in the chest.
>Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-rayed
>and what was discovered in his body??
>
>Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).
Untrue, of course.
>But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
>CT purposes.
>
>
>>>"You have a host of people that have a huge hole sighting in the back, lower
>>>portion of JFK's head which would not do well for a shot from the rear to have
>>>that hole made."
>
>And just exactly WHERE would the killer have been located within DP to
>have caused that BOH hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head?
>
>Answer -- Certainly NOT the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area....that is
>for sure.
Actually, this isn't based on medical opinion. Dr. Kemp, for example, stated at
the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential
wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this.
So your "answer" is factually wrong, isn't it?
>So....WHERE was this unseen assassin who created that FAR-RIGHT-REAR
>hole in JFK's head? Where? And if you answer "Grassy Knoll"...a lot of
>'splainin' is gonna be needed to justify that weird trajectory, which
>has a bullet hitting JFK in the right temple (right?)...and exiting in
>the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of his head (right?).
>
>Good luck explaining that zig-zagging magic missile.
Don't need any "luck". You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield,
and follow the line.
>>>"When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a
>>>greater possibility of multiple shooters."
>
>Bullshit. The SBT is a bona fide fact.
Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than
a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts, and medical doctors who
disagree with it.
>And every re-creation or
>animated "test" that has been performed since '63 has had the SBT
>passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying colors, and everybody
>knows it.
When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to
lie. Every "test" has failed... beginning with the bullets fired into a
cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia.
David VP
half-a-grain probably."
TONY M.: "Probably? You have no basis for making such a claim."
------------
Only the documented, under-oath WC testimony of the doctor who cared
for Governor Connally's wrist and thigh injuries (Dr. Charles Gregory).
.... (Keys words here being: "Flakes of metal", "Micrograms", and "Less
than the weight of a postage stamp".) ......
MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from
five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal."
MR. SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in
total?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in
micrograms which is very small amount of weight. I don't know how to
reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you. It is the kind of weighing
that requires a microadjustable scale, which means that it is something
less than the weight of a postage stamp."
-----------------
You're right about one misstatement I made in my earlier post re. this
matter, Tony. My guess about the wrist fragments weighing not even
"half-a-grain" was probably incorrect. The fragments probably weighed
even considerable LESS than that. Sorry.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "Best I've seen from you is ... quote the WCR..."
>
>And, naturally, the WCR is to be treated as Charmin by everybody
>researching the JFK murder...correct?? There's not a word of truth in
>the WCR, is there? Only pure crap on all 888 pages.
Nope... but there *are* provable lies among those pages.
Why are lies needed to support the truth, Davey-boy?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "And when it's rebutted, you run away."
>
>You've "rebutted" nothing I've presented. Nothing.
Who can say? You keep snipping everything. An honest person would not need to
snip everything.
>You think too much of your "rebutting" skills, BH. Way too much.
Nah... it's *YOU* that think too highly of my rebutting ability. This is why
you refuse to respond to them.
>Just because you've said an LN point has been "rebutted" or "debunked"
>-- it isn't automatically so. Esp. regarding the Tippit crime, which
>any fool can see was committed by LHO (even most CT-Kooks).
Any "fool" who's willing to skip the evidence...
>All rabid CTers who want to take the noose from around Oswald's neck
>re. the Tippit slaying are truly repulsive IMO...and only make
>themselves look totally foolish with respect to the REST of their
>pro-CT JFK arguments as well.
Any person unwilling to support their own words shouldn't refer to others as
"truly repulsive".
Ben Holmes
says...
That means you'll accept Dr. Shaw's assertions? He *DID* work on Connally.
Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be
giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the
same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until
today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of
the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES - Oh, yes; we haven't. come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.
But, of course, we already know your answer... "eyewitness testimony is the
least reliable form of evidence".
LOL!!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing
>>>through the body. They merely guessed."
>
>Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
>path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
>11/23). So what?
Oh, they knew about the neck wound. They certainly tried to hide this
knowledge, since if they *DID* know about it, they had no excuse for a failure
to show a transit.
But they *DID* fail to show any transit. The eyewitness testimony, in
particular, is quite revealing.
>But it was an EDUCATED guess
No, it was speculation that was not based on a primary examination of the
wounds.
It could therefore *equally* be proposed by the drunkard over on 9th avenue.
>(to conclude that the bullet transited the
>neck, which it so obviously did).
The medical evidence is against such a theory. You'll have to face it someday.
>The alternative is so ridiculous it
>should make CTers blush with embarrassment at even suggesting such
>"multiple-bullets-that-hit-nothing-but-stop-dead-anyway" nonsense.
To believe the medical doctors who were there? Why would *that* make anyone
blush?
>But -- Why believe the obvious, when you could be a "CT Nuthatch"?
>Right?
>
>
>>> "You accept the WC fiction that one bullet missed. Show me that bullet."
>
>LOL. It's classic, isn't it?
>
>Quite obviously a MISSED bullet is very likely not going to be
>RECOVERABLE. Only a ding-a-ling would have posted what you've posted
>above.
And only an idiot would assert that *all* the evidence proves that only one
rifle was involved. When clearly you don't even *have* all the evidence.
>>>"You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC said
>>>missed."
>
>And tell me again how my not being able to produce the one "missed
>shot" bullet is supposed to make a CTer's theory re. their supposed
>"missing bullets" any more believable and viable by their not being
>able to produce up to FOUR TIMES that number of AWOL missiles??!!
Oh, we can produce them. You'll find 'em in an FBI locker.
>I must have missed the logic of that brilliant analogy, which is CTer
>logic that seems to imply the following ---
>
>"BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH THE *ONE* MISSING BULLET THAT YOU SAY
>MISSED THE WHOLE CAR, WHY SHOULD WE CONSPIRACISTS BE EXPECTED TO COME
>UP WITH UP TO FOUR TIMES THAT NUMBER OF MISSING PROJECTILES ASSOCIATED
>WITH THIS CASE....*NONE* OF WHICH "MISSED" AT ALL (PER KOOK-STER C.T.
>ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENT) -- BUT, INSTEAD, ALL OF THESE MISSING C.T.
>BULLETS (WHICH MUST REPLACE THE CE399 S.B.T. BULLET) ACTUALLY *HIT*
>VICTIMS IN THE CAR AND THEN DISAPPEARED AFTER CAUSING BODILY INJURIES
>TO TWO DIFFERENT MEN!"
>
>Better re-think that one, Tony. Because I wouldn't want to face a jury
>with that kind of oddball CTer logic in court.
Nutcases, both of you.
David VP
There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.
If there was a bullet -- produce the Goddamn thing! If you can't (or if
you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut
up about it.
>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?"
Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small
dose of common sense) is -- A T&T transiting bullet went through JFK's
neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common
sense. (And everybody should know why.)
>> "Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?"
Speculation based on "common sense" isn't an evil,
you're-gonna-rot-in-hell syndrome to be ashamed of in many instances
re. this case. Not EVERY single thing CAN be answered with ONLY
"evidence". Why in the world WOULDN'T you apply some CS&L to the
proceedings at hand? You seem to think it's illegal to do so. Odd. And
silly. (See "The Crazy Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy Theory" for examples of
how CTers fail to use "common sense"; it's blatantly obvious there.)
>> "Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a
shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't..."
Are you "speculating" here? That's a no-no, ya know.
Shotgun pellet?? LOL.
Some great pro hit men you've got there. Using "shotgun pellets" on
their Presidential hit. Hilarious.
>> "And, in any case, the first and best medical evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?"
The FIRST "speculation" re. that wound was that of "entry", yes. So
what? Dr. Perry said it could be "either" an exit or entry wound. He's
a liar, right? Or a Govt. shill. Right? Right.
>> "That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile to the BOH photo."
Today's dictionary lesson for Ben-boy....
http://webster.com/dictionary/somewhat
>> "No, this {transiting wound} was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy, as you well know."
Sure. So what? How does that make a T&T wound impossible or even
improbable?
>> "Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was performed."
So? Who cares what Shaw said on an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a bullet found
in JFK's lung?
Answer: No. End of story. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides, was
Shaw one of KENNEDY'S Parkland doctors??
Answer: No.
>> "Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the "Houston Post" that "The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone"."
Ridiculous comments by Shaw (assuming you've got those silly quotes
correct). He didn't have any more knowledge of JFK's wounds than I did
at the time.
And your quoting CONNALLY'S doctor with respect to JFK's wounds and
JFK'S AUTOPSY (which Shaw did not attend of course) is silly too.
But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable --
let's just totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE AT THE
AUTOPSY and believe, instead, the word of a third party who was
thousands of miles to the southwest at the time of Kennedy's
post-mortem exam.
Yeah...let's do that, OK? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr.
Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy (which
he knew NOTHING about first-hand). Great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic
there. Keep it up. You're doing fine.
>> "So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted with far more explanation, and under oath?"
Are you high on Groden-Gas or something???!!!
Are you sure you're quoting the right doctor here? Shaw??? Who NEVER
treated or even saw JFK at Parkland Hospital on 11/22? .....
Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render any aid to President
Kennedy on November 22?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John
B. Connally on that day?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
>> "Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those treating Connally - he could have been struck by as many as 3 shots... and Dr. Shaw didn't find it "monstrously-silly" to so consider."
Nor did he find it silly to state on Live TV on 11/22 that ALL of
Connally's wounds were likely caused by "one bullet".
If shot THREE times...where are the freakin' bullets? Naturally, they
"vanished" into CT Smoke, right? Yeah, right.
>> "The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear."
Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?
IOW -- Prove it.
>> "Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?"
Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess.
Nobody saw him/them.
>> "It was burned in a fireplace... remember?"
And please explain the logic of Humes ADMITTING to burning ANY
documents if he were on a "Mission To Make DVP's Life A Living Hell & A
Mission To Make Ben-Boy (Not Sherlock) Holmes Look Like A Grandiose
Sleuth 40+ Years Later"??
IOW -- WHY would he say ANYTHING re. "burning" evidence up in his home
fireplace when he had no reason to do so in a strictly "cover-up"
mindset?
Humes is being boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH re.
the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some COMMON SENSE when
attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.
And Dr. Humes is also strung up by CT morons for merely placing into
the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID AUTOPSY REPORT
(post-Perry conversation).
Proving that: Many CTers who do this berating of Humes are
first-rate....kooks. :)
>> "With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other
fragments.
Nor was Oswald's C2766 weapon "eliminated" as the source of such
smaller fragments. But you know that of course.
>> "Yep...to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically-trained doctors on a topic that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory"."
Would the above comment also apply to Humes/Finck/Boswell with respect
to the "Only Two Bullets Struck President Kennedy" conclusion of their
Official Pathological Examination on JFK?
And -- Would that argument also apply to Dr. Gregory with respect to
the "micrograms" of bullet fragments left inside JBC's wrist?
Or is that argument only valid when a CT kook espouses it in feeble
attempts to avoid the obviousness of Lee Oswald's lone guilt?
(Thanks...thought so.)
>> "Quite probably {re. the kook-ster's unsupportable belief that a bullet/bullets lodged in JFK's chest and/or lungs}."
Oh, you must mean here that you are "speculating". Right? (Something
I'm not allowed to do it seems, ever. But you can do it when it suits
your needs (and whims). Nice double-standard. Thanks. I get it now.)
>> "Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest."
Nothing mysterious there.....
"I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any
blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax." --
Dr. Perry (to WC)
But at autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage to the
chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura cavity,
which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).
Wanna try another silly tack re. this matter?
>> "Untrue {re. "bullets left in body}, of course."
OK. I'll bite. Produce those bullets you say were in his body.
>> "Dr. Kemp [sic; LOL added here] stated at the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this."
So? What does that prove?
Answer -- Nada.
(Think Dr. Clark might have been "speculating" there?)
BTW -- The doctor's name was "William Kemp Clark", not "Clark Kemp".
ROFL.
(But, then again, maybe "Clark Kent" was aiding "Clark Kemp" at
Parkland on 11/22. LOL. Could be. Kent and Superman MUST certainly have
been there....because nothing short of "Super Hero" status could have
resulted in all those disappearing bullets and all the rest of that
cloak-&-dagger stuff following the shooting.)
>> "You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line."
And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE this
"frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow) within
DP in order to achieve that "BOH" (far-right-rear) wound on JFK's head
that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.
Where was this killer? On the Overpass (amongst Holland, Dodd, Simmons,
and TWO DPD cops)? On the south side of Elm someplace? Perhaps James
Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a CT I've never heard spouted
before. You could write a new book!
>> "Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts, and medical doctors who disagree with it."
And (hint) it's also a "theory" that has MANY, MANY ballistics experts,
doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.
Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case
alternate CT theory to replace it....the SBT is still (by far) the best
explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm St. in
Dallas. And everybody SHOULD know it...and know why this is.
>> "When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to lie."
The usual Ben-boy "Willing To Lie" mantra. I love it. Every time I see
it, I love it more. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks.
>> "Every {SBT} "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets fired into a cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia."
All together now! -----
Bull----Shit!
If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the
viability (at the the "possibility") of the SBT....you're as goofy as
The Comic Book Guy.
That re-creation verified virtually every aspect of the SBT's potential
"doability"; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could easily see
that was so.
And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory
as closer to "factual" than "theory"....and anybody with one eye who
isn't buried a mile deep in books written by
Marrs/Groden/Garrison/Mellen/Livingstone/and Fetzer could easily see
that fact as well.
Apparently, Ben-boy's stack of Fetzer & Marrs' tomes is too tall to see
around. A pity.
See ya.
David Von Pein
May 23rd, 2006
David VP
Well...er...uh...Ben...perhaps you'd have been better off if you would
have omitted this comment made by Dr. Shaw (it doesn't help your
"3-Bullet" cause...at all....does it now?)....
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.
I guess, though, the words, "No Firm Opinion" and "Could Be Caused By
The Same Bullet" (which Shaw also stated) equate -- in Ben-boy's CT
lingo -- to this ....
"Yes, Mr. McCloy, I am definitely of the opinion that three separate
bullets pierced the Governor's body....despite my remarks just one
second ago that I have "no firm opinion" on the matter. I was just
kiddin' you Warren boys with that "no firm opinion" remark. You don't
mind having your collective legs pulled like that, do ya?! ~wink~"
Ben Holmes
I wonder if you'd have the honesty to report *all* the evidence on this issue?
In article <1148357421.6...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> That means you'll accept Dr. Shaw's assertions? He *DID* work on Connally.
>
>Well...er...uh...Ben...perhaps you'd have been better off if you would
>have omitted this comment made by Dr. Shaw (it doesn't help your
>"3-Bullet" cause...at all....does it now?)....
Of course it does. Dr. Shaw states that Connally's wounds *COULD* have been
caused by as many as three bullets.
>Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
>caused by one bullet?
>Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.
>
>I guess, though, the words, "No Firm Opinion" and "Could Be Caused By
>The Same Bullet" (which Shaw also stated) equate -- in Ben-boy's CT
>lingo -- to this ....
>
>"Yes, Mr. McCloy, I am definitely of the opinion that three separate
>bullets pierced the Governor's body....despite my remarks just one
>second ago that I have "no firm opinion" on the matter. I was just
>kiddin' you Warren boys with that "no firm opinion" remark. You don't
>mind having your collective legs pulled like that, do ya?! ~wink~"
Nah... such a silly speculation isn't needed. That's why I quoted Dr. Shaw's
exact words. Bugs you, doesn't it?
How could Dr. Shaw have been so stupid as to not immediately recognize the SBT,
right?
curtj...@webtv.net
Why don't you take Shaw's opinion on the amount of fragmentation left
in Connally as opposed to what was gone from the Magic Bullet? I think
ROTF was his answer.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
David VP wrote:
> >> "There have been numerous conspiracy events of magnitude in history, so whatever you attempt to label must only be concerning this case."
>
> And what exactly makes you think that I am referring to any "CTers"
> OUTSIDE this particular case? Quite obviously, I'm JUST referring to
> THIS CASE. Why wouldn't I be?
>
conspiracy be so out of the ordinary for this case? Why would a LG
make any more sense?
>
> >> "The fact is one or ten people could have been shooting at JFK with the amount of buildings and surroundings."
>
> Sure. But where's the evidence (the bullets, the guns, the witness who
> can claim "There's the killer!"; anything!) that shows there WERE
> multiple shooters firing from the other "buildings and surroundings"?
> Answer -- The evidence does not exist...and never did.
>
You say it does not exist. Was there any investigation of the other
buildings? Was there any investigation of unaccounted for folks who
displayed SS badges when noone was on duty? Did anyone see LHO shoot a
rifle? Did anyone see anyone shoot a rifle?
>
> >> "Well you got a hole in the back that would never match up with the sixth floor and anything above the waste [sic]."
>
> WTF??
> HUH??
> Another "WTF?".
>
To get you up to speed, the FBI agent at the autopsy said the
abbreviated depth of the back wound was between 45 and 60 degrees. If
you like having the sixth floor of the TSBD as a shooting point, then
that angle for the wound would never match up to a neck wound. Kapish?
> Why in the world you're spouting this garbage is anyone's guess.
>
It's garbage for you because you can't understand the statement.
>
> >> "You have no proof that the hole went to the other side..."
>
> Only basic common sense....plus the LACK of bullets in JFK....plus the
> LACK of any damage that would have STOPPED said bullet from passing
> through the neck. That's all. Plus the Autopsy Report, which states
> that the bullet positively passed through the body.
>
> Naturally, we should just ignore the autopsy doctors and their Final
> Report. Right? And we should ignore common sense too. Right? And common
> sense tells anyone with a brain that one bullet transited JFK's neck.
>
Passed through? They only had to make that up the next day because
they were getting phone calls. You must be calling all the doctors at
Parkland brainless. You like the word 'transited' when it pleases you.
I guess if the Magic bullet transited then it would have never fell
out in a stretcher would it?
>
> >> "Of course all avoid the bullet that fell out from the backside at Bethesda when unloading JFK from the coffin to the gurney."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>
Why should I have a rookie have his evidence spoon fed? Why don't you
find an author who has interviewed everyone that was involved medically
in the case? If you do, you will find 3 or 4 of Bethesda's personnel
that will help you.
>
> >> "You probably have two bullets for Connally with all the damage that 'they' did."
>
> Proof please.
> You have none (as per usual).
>
Like you have proof that one did the damage? How many wounds? How
many broken bones? How come all the fragmentation left in the body and
how come a bullet without much of any grainage lost just happen to plop
out onto a stretcher? Make it work.
> In fact, there's ample evidence suggesting Connally was struck by just
> one bullet. Connally said so...Dr. Shaw said so on Live TV on
> 11/22...and the LACK of finding any bullets inside or near Connally
> also supports the idea that 399 only was inside him.
>
When did Connally lose consciousness? Would he have been a good
witness for a potential other bullet?
> Via a 2-bullets-hit-JBC theory, you now have upped the absurdity of ANY
> anti-SBT theory to monstrously-silly heights. You do realize that,
> right?
>
Well the SBT theory is already at your altitude. There are many other
aspects than just Connally that would disprove the SBT theory. I would
say your theory would be better if the Magic Bullet would not be
admissable.
> You'll need to explain away FOUR total disappearing bullets (instead of
> just three). Four bullets just vanish, never entering the record in the
> case. Logical? Even slightly so? Hardly.
>
Bullets are not recovered in lots of shootings. You must take the
evidence of witnesses who saw bullets and assume they did not see any
of them. You must assume that no hollow point bullets were used that
would fragment. You must assume that all the evidence gatherers were
either under no stress, or had any job to lose if they reported what
they saw. You must assume that there could have been only one bullet
found and not have multiple gunmen.
> With each misstep, you and other CTers make yourselves look more
> foolish in an "anti-SBT" manner.
>
> You're actually saying that FOUR magically-vanishing bullets is a
> more-reasonable conclusion than the SBT (which has all of its bullets
> {1} accounted for right in the hospital where the victims were taken).
> Amazing.
>
At least one or maybe two of those bullets were not found at the
hospital where the victims were taken to. And were not even counting
the missed curb shot or the other shot that hit Tague.
>
> >> "The amount of lead left in {Connally's} body doesn't do well for the pristine bullet."
>
> Bullshit. The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
> half-a-grain probably. You're spouting another misleading CT piece of
> junk theory that has no merit at all. But I'm sure you know that. But
> you'll keep saying it for years on end anyway (until Vince arrives
> anyhow).
>
And why didn't they operate and take it out of Connally? Your Vinnie
will be like Mighty Mouse for you and "come and save the day."
>
> >> "You have about 12 witnesses that say they heard and saw gunsmoke from the grassy knoll."
>
> And what did the policeman (and the "Knoll-storming" witnesses) see
> when they got to the top of the Knoll? Answer -- No killer. No guns. No
> shells. No sign of anything. That was one mighty swift assassin there.
>
No one reached the top of the knoll until 70 seconds were gone. I
guess the Railroad
workers saw Old Faithful instead of gunsmoke? I guess the 12 year old
witness who happens to give talks on the GK knoll didn't see any? I
guess the interview of the couple who ducked between the cars while the
shooting went on didn't count? I guess Abraham Zapruder who came from
his work and talked to the people on the knoll who came and said the
shot came from his right didn't count? I guess Mr. Newman who came to
talk to the common folk who said shots came from behind him didn't
count? I guess the SS agent didn't count when confronted by the
policeman who had greasy hands? I guess the "dazed winos" who went
back to the railroad car didn't count?
>
> >> "You have a doctor who specified a 'snowstorm' of fragments in JFK's brain which would be a frangibile bullet, unlike another bullet that could have been fired from an MC."
>
> And the autopsy report said what now?
> Any mention of MORE than just a single bullet hit JFK in the head from
> the rear? (With a fragment in JFK's head being linked to Oswald's
> gun....plus the two large fragments in the car linked to LHO's
> gun....with no other guns linked to this crime via fragments.)
>
And how do you know it's his gun? And what type of ammunition that gun
was capable of? Of course you don't want to deal with frangible
bullets that fragmented into tiny pieces in JFK's brain? What kind of
bullet do you think was in JBC when they couldn't operate?
> Let's just ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-All evidence and go with some
> "snowstorm" guesswork...shall we? OK. Great. Let's do that. You seem to
> like that half-baked approach.
>
All you have is a rifle that was of poor quality, and a 'SN' that would
be extremely hard to shoot from with the window only a little open.
You have his fellow marines telling how poor a shot he was, and have a
tree in the way. You have a sight that is way off. You have a
so-called can't miss shot being passed up when JFK came up Houston for
this crack shot that no person has been able to duplicate having great
marksman credentials. You have Oswald being in the TSBD and coming
down to the sixth floor when it would be impossible to get there, and
not have run into people that were using the stairway that he could
have only used.
>
> >> "You have unison from Parkland doctors of a frontal throat wound. You have two doctors there say it was lodged in the chest or lung."
>
> So what? Who cares? Means zilch.
>
Why not? Did you know that they cut along JFK's chest during his stay
at Parkland?
> Because .... DID a bullet "lodge in the chest or lung"?
>
According to one doc, it traversed downward. According to one doc, it
was in the lung.
> Answer -- No, of course it did not. The entire body of JFK was X-rayed
> and what was discovered in his body??
>
If you knew the X-rays that were taken and when you might think
differently. Did you know that some X-rays were taken after the organs
were removed?
> Answer -- No bullets whatsoever (head to toe).
>
Wrong again.
> But...let's just ignore that hunk of Officialdom. It's better for your
> CT purposes.
>
I have no CT purpose other than finding the real killers or why the act
was done. LHO could have been a CT and not shot any shots.
>
> >> "You have a host of people that have a huge hole sighting in the back, lower portion of JFK's head which would not do well for a shot from the rear to have that hole made."
>
> And just exactly WHERE would the killer have been located within DP to
> have caused that BOH hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head?
>
> Answer -- Certainly NOT the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence area....that is
> for sure.
>
Why not? It was a 45 degree shot or maybe more. How does one get a
shot from the 'SN' and that be on the right side of JFK and have a hole
go in the bottom of JFK's head and exit out the top of his head?
> So....WHERE was this unseen assassin who created that FAR-RIGHT-REAR
> hole in JFK's head? Where? And if you answer "Grassy Knoll"...a lot of
> 'splainin' is gonna be needed to justify that weird trajectory, which
> has a bullet hitting JFK in the right temple (right?)...and exiting in
> the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of his head (right?).
>
Aren't you assuming that the perpetrators have to get caught?
> Good luck explaining that zig-zagging magic missile.
>
Better luck at explaining an obvious exit wound than an entry wound.
>
> >> "When the SBT is patently false, it's just one step to knowing that there is a greater possibility of multiple shooters."
>
> Bullshit. The SBT is a bona fide fact. And every re-creation or
> animated "test" that has been performed since '63 has had the SBT
> passing the "It Was Doable" test with flying colors, and everybody
> knows it.
Everybody but the American Public. All the crackpots that made it
'doable' only ignored the evidence and got the trajectory angle screwed
up from the sixth floor to somehow make it palatable for good ol' Dave.
CJ
tomnln
Does NOT account for the 4 good sized fragments taken by the Nurse.
(size of a match head)
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148357421.6...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
RicBi...@aol.com
> MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
> metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from
> five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
> in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
> thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal."
Take out a ruler how long 2 millimeters are. Now show us on CE399
where a 2 millimeter chunk is missing.
Thanks in advance,
- /< /\ /> -
Anthony Marsh
>>> "The photo showing a bullet being dug out of the grass."
>
> There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.
>
> If there was a bullet -- produce the Goddamn thing! If you can't (or if
> you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut
> up about it.
>
>
YOU don't produce the bullet which the WC said missed. You are a hypocrite.
Just like your WC bullet which missed, or the fragment which hit the
curb near Tague.
>
>>> "The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear."
>
> Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?
> IOW -- Prove it.
>
Show me the chrome topping. Show me additional fragments which were
found in the limo.
>
>>> "Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?"
>
> Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess.
> Nobody saw him/them.
>
Of course someone saw him. Officer Joe Smith let him go.
David VP
Only if YOU promise to show ME those OTHER THREE OR FOUR missing
bullets that CTers say WENT INTO TWO BODIES (JFK/JBC) on 11/22 (to
replace CE399).
Deal?
And -- Can you (or any CTer) manage to conjure up a reasonable,
believable alternative to the SBT shooting scenario. Can you do that
without utilizing the words "Faked Evidence" in such a scenario?
Anthony Marsh
> DVP: "The amount of lead left in JBC's body wouldn't amount to a
> half-a-grain probably."
> TONY M.: "Probably? You have no basis for making such a claim."
>
> ------------
>
> Only the documented, under-oath WC testimony of the doctor who cared
> for Governor Connally's wrist and thigh injuries (Dr. Charles Gregory).
> .... (Keys words here being: "Flakes of metal", "Micrograms", and "Less
> than the weight of a postage stamp".) ......
>
Great, so like a conspiracy kook, you offer one particular eyewitness
and ignore all other evidence.
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
> metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from
> five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
> in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
> thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal."
>
Show me this 2 mm fragment. Please.
Tell me what is the weight in grains of a lead core fragment a half
millimeter thick and 2 mm in diameter. This should be fun.
And he is talking about several fragments. Show me these several
fragments. Show me the range in size. Talk is cheap. Show me this evidence.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing through the body. They merely guessed."
>
> Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
> path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
> 11/23). So what?
>
They had a choice, but they did not take it. They did not dissect the
wound path as they should have.
> But it was an EDUCATED guess (to conclude that the bullet transited the
> neck, which it so obviously did). The alternative is so ridiculous it
> should make CTers blush with embarrassment at even suggesting such
> "multiple-bullets-that-hit-nothing-but-stop-dead-anyway" nonsense.
>
It was HUMES who came up with that idea.
> But -- Why believe the obvious, when you could be a "CT Nuthatch"?
> Right?
>
What are you lying about this time? I have always said that the bullet
transited.
>
>>> "You accept the WC fiction that one bullet missed. Show me that bullet."
>
> LOL. It's classic, isn't it?
>
> Quite obviously a MISSED bullet is very likely not going to be
> RECOVERABLE. Only a ding-a-ling would have posted what you've posted
> above.
>
Wimpy. You demand evidence, but you can't produce it yourself.
>
>>> "You can't even explain away ONE totally disappearing bullet which the WC said missed."
>
> And tell me again how my not being able to produce the one "missed
> shot" bullet is supposed to make a CTer's theory re. their supposed
> "missing bullets" any more believable and viable by their not being
> able to produce up to FOUR TIMES that number of AWOL missiles??!!
>
Who has FOUR TIMES? Not I.
And you can not find the rest of the bullet which left the two large
fragments in the front seat. So it is not just missed shots.
Every scenario has missing fragments.
> I must have missed the logic of that brilliant analogy, which is CTer
> logic that seems to imply the following ---
>
> "BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH THE *ONE* MISSING BULLET THAT YOU SAY
> MISSED THE WHOLE CAR, WHY SHOULD WE CONSPIRACISTS BE EXPECTED TO COME
> UP WITH UP TO FOUR TIMES THAT NUMBER OF MISSING PROJECTILES ASSOCIATED
> WITH THIS CASE....*NONE* OF WHICH "MISSED" AT ALL (PER KOOK-STER C.T.
> ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENT) -- BUT, INSTEAD, ALL OF THESE MISSING C.T.
> BULLETS (WHICH MUST REPLACE THE CE399 S.B.T. BULLET) ACTUALLY *HIT*
> VICTIMS IN THE CAR AND THEN DISAPPEARED AFTER CAUSING BODILY INJURIES
> TO TWO DIFFERENT MEN!"
>
Send out an emergency call to Oklahoma. Get some more straw right quick.
> Better re-think that one, Tony. Because I wouldn't want to face a jury
> with that kind of oddball CTer logic in court.
>
You are making up ridiculous arguments and then lying by claiming that I
espouse them.
David VP
stamp" equates to?
And you're asking to see fragments that were left INSIDE JBC's body.
Right?
Great.
OK....give me a few minutes...I'll see if I can dig those up for ya.
Stand by.....
>> "Talk is cheap."
Yeah, it is.
Just like talk of multiple bullets hitting the victims that ALL were
conveniently lost or "covered up" by conspirators. THAT talk is REALLY
"cheap".
Plus.....My not being able to "produce" the WC missed-shot missile
doesn't hold water on your "hypocrite" scale at all when compared to my
asking Ben to produce the bullet which he said WAS recovered in the Elm
St. grass after the shooting.
If it was recovered and exists....where is it?
My "missed-shot" (WC) bullet was NOT recovered by anyone (either in my
LN dreams or otherwise). But Ben (and you too Tony??) says a whole
bullet was recovered on Elm St. (per Ben's "I Have No Proof Of This But
I'll Say It's True Anyway" CT Kooksville method of dealing with
evidence).
Put up...or shut up. Where's the bullet?
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Those were thr Fragments LEFT in JBC.
> Does NOT account for the 4 good sized fragments taken by the Nurse.
> (size of a match head)
Size of your head too, as far as that goes.
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... snip snip... Gutless coward, aren't you?
In article <1148362765.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> The photo showing a bullet being dug out of the grass.
>
>There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.
>
>If there was a bullet -- produce the Goddamn thing! If you can't (or if
>you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut
>up about it.
You'll just have to live with the fact that the photo exists. And that bullets
found on 11/22 disappeared at FBI HDQTers.
>> But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?"
>
>Certainly not.
Then you're a liar. But then again, we knew that, didn't we?
> The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small
>dose of common sense)
Speculation, you mean. This speculation is not founded on any primary
examination results during the autopsy.
>is -- A T&T transiting bullet went through JFK's
>neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common
>sense. (And everybody should know why.)
The alternative is to follow what the evidence says, isn't it?
>> Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?
>
>Speculation based on "common sense" isn't an evil,
>you're-gonna-rot-in-hell syndrome to be ashamed of in many instances
>re. this case. Not EVERY single thing CAN be answered with ONLY
>"evidence". Why in the world WOULDN'T you apply some CS&L to the
>proceedings at hand? You seem to think it's illegal to do so. Odd. And
>silly. (See "The Crazy Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy Theory" for examples of
>how CTers fail to use "common sense"; it's blatantly obvious there.)
It's good that you accept that the SBT is based on speculation.
For once you've accepted that historical fact, it'll be easier for you to wean
yourself off such a silly theory.
>> Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a
>> shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't...
>
>Are you "speculating" here? That's a no-no, ya know.
Speculation that is *clearly* being asserted as speculation is in a whole
'nuther league from the garbage you keep asserting without it being clear that
you *ARE* speculating. I spend half my time just point those examples out.
>Shotgun pellet?? LOL.
That was the opinion of the radiologist. Upon what expert opinion are *YOU*
basing any conclusions on?
>Some great pro hit men you've got there. Using "shotgun pellets" on
>their Presidential hit. Hilarious.
Wrong, weren't you, when you tried to assert (and interestingly, you've snipped
it) that the X-rays showed no bullets.
Why not simply admit that you were wrong, and retract your statement?
>> And, in any case, the first and best medical evidence is for the neck
>> wound to be an entry, wasn't it?
>
>The FIRST "speculation"
Nope. It's not "speculation" when it's a medically trained doctor offering his
expert opinion based on a primary examination of such a wound.
You really need to grab a dictionary, and look up the word. You don't seem to
know it.
>re. that wound was that of "entry", yes. So
>what? Dr. Perry said it could be "either" an exit or entry wound. He's
>a liar, right? Or a Govt. shill. Right? Right.
It took tremendous pressure to get him to go as far as he did, didn't it?
Intimidation by federal agents to change testimony can be labeled what?
>> That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of
>> course, IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile to the BOH photo."
>
>Today's dictionary lesson for Ben-boy....
>
>http://webster.com/dictionary/somewhat
Perhaps you simply don't know where the occipital is. For despite what you
imply, the parietal extends into the back of the head, and a wound *can* be
entirely in the parietal, AND be located in the back of the head, but a wound
that so much as *touches* the occipital - *IS* in the back of the head. For no
part of the occipital cannot be described as other than the back of the head.
Feeling stupid, Davey-boy? Willing to admit that the BOH photo shows no such
thing?
>> No, this {transiting wound} was speculation created *after* the body
>> had already left the autopsy, as you well know.
>
>Sure.
Good of you to admit to historical fact.
>So what? How does that make a T&T wound impossible or even
>improbable?
It makes it precisely what I asserted it is: speculation created *after* the
body had already left the autopsy...
>> Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as
>> stating that a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and
>> "coursed downward into his lung [and] was removed in the Bethesda
>> Naval Hospital where the autopsy was performed."
>
>So? Who cares what Shaw said on an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a bullet found
>in JFK's lung?
Good question... but *YOU* must accept it, as you're trying to show that Dr.
Shaw's statements must be accepted, aren't you?
>Answer: No. End of story. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides, was
>Shaw one of KENNEDY'S Parkland doctors??
>
>Answer: No.
So why should I accept your meaningless statement about Dr. Shaw's statements?
If you yourself label his statements as "meaningless", why bother to try citing
him for anything at all?
>> Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the "Houston
>> Post" that "The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the
>> front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to
>> Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone"."
>
>Ridiculous comments by Shaw (assuming you've got those silly quotes
>correct).
If you have the money to put down on your implication, I'll be happy to take it
from you with appropriate citation. Of course, you *could* look it up
yourself... considering that I gave you the name of the paper, and the date it
appeared.
>He didn't have any more knowledge of JFK's wounds than I did
>at the time.
I've got a $100 bill waiting for you should you be able to provide an
unimpeachable citation of *YOUR* knowledge on 11/29/63.
Most lurkers will well understand how the doctors were talking to each other...
>And your quoting CONNALLY'S doctor with respect to JFK's wounds and
>JFK'S AUTOPSY (which Shaw did not attend of course) is silly too.
This was *YOUR* eyewitness. It seems that you don't like him anymore... how
sad...
>But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable --
>let's just totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE AT THE
>AUTOPSY
You must... for you can't believe what they said.
You're just too gutless to admit it.
>and believe, instead, the word of a third party who was
>thousands of miles to the southwest at the time of Kennedy's
>post-mortem exam.
Where did he get the information?
>Yeah...let's do that, OK? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr.
>Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy (which
>he knew NOTHING about first-hand). Great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic
>there. Keep it up. You're doing fine.
It's your eyewitness, Davey-boy.
You've snipped the context, but I brought all of this testimony in - in response
to YOUR citation of Dr. Shaw. How cowardly of you to forget this.
>> So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has
>> contradicted with far more explanation, and under oath?"
>
>Are you high on Groden-Gas or something???!!!
>
>Are you sure you're quoting the right doctor here? Shaw??? Who NEVER
>treated or even saw JFK at Parkland Hospital on 11/22? .....
>
>Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render any aid to President
>Kennedy on November 22?
>Dr. SHAW - No.
>Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John
>B. Connally on that day?
>Dr. SHAW - Yes.
You didn't answer the question, Davey-boy... here, let's try again: So kindly
explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted with far
more explanation, and under oath?"
>> Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one
>> of those treating Connally - he could have been struck by as many as 3
>> shots... and Dr. Shaw didn't find it "monstrously-silly" to so consider."
>
>Nor did he find it silly to state on Live TV on 11/22 that ALL of
>Connally's wounds were likely caused by "one bullet".
So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted
with far more explanation, and under oath?"
>If shot THREE times...where are the freakin' bullets? Naturally, they
>"vanished" into CT Smoke, right? Yeah, right.
FBI Headquarters, file cabinet... Hoover's old office.
>> The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear."
>
>Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?
>IOW -- Prove it.
An example readily comes to mind, LHO's minox camera. But you can also produce
the bullet that *WAS PHOTOGRAPHED BEING DUG OUT OF THE GRASS*... or else admit
that it "disappeared" at FBI HDQT'ers.
>> Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?
>
>Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess.
>Nobody saw him/them.
Untrue. When you have to lie to make a point, you've merely proven that you're
willing to lie.
>> It was burned in a fireplace... remember?
>
>And please explain the logic of Humes ADMITTING to burning ANY
>documents if he were on a "Mission To Make DVP's Life A Living Hell & A
>Mission To Make Ben-Boy (Not Sherlock) Holmes Look Like A Grandiose
>Sleuth 40+ Years Later"??
Quite simple... he was ordered to get rid of the first autopsy.
>IOW -- WHY would he say ANYTHING re. "burning" evidence up in his home
>fireplace when he had no reason to do so in a strictly "cover-up"
>mindset?
He didn't have such a mindset. He was ordered to do so.
>Humes is being boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH re.
>the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some COMMON SENSE when
>attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.
>
>And Dr. Humes is also strung up by CT morons for merely placing into
>the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID AUTOPSY REPORT
>(post-Perry conversation).
If the extant autopsy report is the only "correct and valid" autopsy report,
what happened to the one that described the bullet entering the back just a
short distance, then falling back out?
Or the autopsy report that described the throat wound as the result of a bone
fragment from the headshot?
>Proving that: Many CTers who do this berating of Humes are
>first-rate....kooks. :)
Ad hominem is all you have, isn't it?
>> With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other
>> fragments.
>
>Nor was Oswald's C2766 weapon "eliminated" as the source of such
>smaller fragments. But you know that of course.
Nope... I don't.
>> Yep...to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically-trained doctors on
>> a topic that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support
>> their "theory"."
>
>Would the above comment also apply to Humes/Finck/Boswell with respect
>to the "Only Two Bullets Struck President Kennedy" conclusion of their
>Official Pathological Examination on JFK?
Did their observations support their *conclusions*?
And how does their "conclusions" differ from Perry's "speculations"
Why are you confusing "conclusions" and "speculations"?
Why did Perry "speculate", yet Humes "conclude"?
And where did Humes "conclude" the head wound was?
>And -- Would that argument also apply to Dr. Gregory with respect to
>the "micrograms" of bullet fragments left inside JBC's wrist?
List the *rest* of the evidence... we'll look at it.
>Or is that argument only valid when a CT kook espouses it in feeble
>attempts to avoid the obviousness of Lee Oswald's lone guilt?
>(Thanks...thought so.)
Nutcase, aren't you?
>> Quite probably {re. the kook-ster's unsupportable belief that a
>> bullet/bullets lodged in JFK's chest and/or lungs}."
>
>Oh, you must mean here that you are "speculating".
Those were not my words. Why bother lying about it?
>Right? (Something
>I'm not allowed to do it seems, ever. But you can do it when it suits
>your needs (and whims). Nice double-standard. Thanks. I get it now.)
>
>
>> Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to
>> insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest."
>
>Nothing mysterious there.....
>
>"I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any
>blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax." --
>Dr. Perry (to WC)
>
>But at autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage to the
>chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura cavity,
>which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).
>
>Wanna try another silly tack re. this matter?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Missed it, didn't you?
>> Untrue {re. "bullets left in body}, of course.
>
>OK. I'll bite. Produce those bullets you say were in his body.
You may view the X-rays at your leisure... Or review the testimony of Ebersole.
Then you can retract your false statement.
>> Dr. Kemp stated at the 11/22 press conference
>> that the head wound could have been a tangential wound. According to
>> a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this."
>
>So? What does that prove?
>Answer -- Nada.
Liar, aren't you?
You snipped, of course, what this applied to - which was a statement that the
BOH wound could not have been caused by any Grassy Knoll shooter.
Yet clearly it not only *could* have been, it also has medical support.
Lied, didn't you?
>(Think Dr. Clark might have been "speculating" there?)
>
>BTW -- The doctor's name was "William Kemp Clark", not "Clark Kemp".
>ROFL.
Yep... that's what happens when my thoughts get ahead of my typing.
>(But, then again, maybe "Clark Kent" was aiding "Clark Kemp" at
>Parkland on 11/22. LOL. Could be. Kent and Superman MUST certainly have
>been there....because nothing short of "Super Hero" status could have
>resulted in all those disappearing bullets and all the rest of that
>cloak-&-dagger stuff following the shooting.)
Taking lessons from Bud, are we?
>> You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line.
>
>And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE this
>"frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow) within
>DP in order to achieve that "BOH" (far-right-rear) wound on JFK's head
>that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.
You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line.
>Where was this killer? On the Overpass (amongst Holland, Dodd, Simmons,
>and TWO DPD cops)? On the south side of Elm someplace? Perhaps James
>Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a CT I've never heard spouted
>before. You could write a new book!
Is it based on any evidence? It would be a *LNT'er* book if it's not based on
the primary evidence in this case.
>> Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better
>> than a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts, and medical
>> doctors who disagree with it.
>
>And (hint) it's also a "theory" that has MANY, MANY ballistics experts,
>doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.
Yep, that too. Unfortunately, not too many of them will step up to the plate
and *defend* their stance.
>Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case
>alternate CT theory to replace it....
What's shy? There've been a number of good ones. You may start with SSID, and
try to refute it.
>the SBT is still (by far) the best
>explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm St. in
>Dallas. And everybody SHOULD know it...and know why this is.
Really hurts your feelings that few believe it, doesn't it?
>> When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're
>> willing to lie.
>
>The usual Ben-boy "Willing To Lie" mantra. I love it. Every time I see
>it, I love it more. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks.
Yep... Lurkers take note: Davey-boy loved it so much that he *SNIPPED* the
comment he made that it applied to.
Rather cowardly, isn't it, Davey-boy?
>> Every {SBT} "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets fired into a
>> cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in
>> Australia.
>
>All together now! -----
>
>Bull----Shit!
Feel free to defend *any* of those tests.
>If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the
>viability (at the the "possibility") of the SBT....you're as goofy as
>The Comic Book Guy.
The bullet plopped out with so little energy that it would not have even broken
the skin on the wrist.
Deal with it.
LNT'ers always seem to ignore the TOTALITY of the SBT.
>That re-creation verified virtually every aspect
"virtually"? Au contraire... it proved that a bullet could *NOT* have had
enough energy to go further and break the wrist.
>of the SBT's potential
>"doability"; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could easily see
>that was so.
Then you should be able to explain the contradiction...
But you won't.
>And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory
>as closer to "factual" than "theory"....and anybody with one eye who
>isn't buried a mile deep in books written by
>Marrs/Groden/Garrison/Mellen/Livingstone/and Fetzer could easily see
>that fact as well.
GIGO.
>Apparently, Ben-boy's stack of Fetzer & Marrs' tomes is too tall to see
>around. A pity.
>
>See ya.
>
>David Von Pein
>May 23rd, 2006
I wonder if you'll *ever* develop enough character and honesty to reply without
snipping.
But cowards will always be cowards, I suppose.
Ben Holmes
>
>David VP wrote:
>>>>"Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing
>>>>through the body. They merely guessed."
>>
>> Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
>> path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
>> 11/23). So what?
>>
>
>They had a choice,
No, they didn't. And Tony knows this quite well, so once again, I'm going to
label him for what he is, a liar.
The prosectors were *ORDERED* not to dissect the path of the wound. And Tony
knows this.
There was no "choice" involved.
For although Humes tries to assert otherwise, we have testimony taken under
oath, and Tony knows exact what I'm referring to.
>but they did not take it. They did not dissect the
>wound path as they should have.
>
>> But it was an EDUCATED guess (to conclude that the bullet transited the
>> neck, which it so obviously did). The alternative is so ridiculous it
>> should make CTers blush with embarrassment at even suggesting such
>> "multiple-bullets-that-hit-nothing-but-stop-dead-anyway" nonsense.
>>
>
>It was HUMES who came up with that idea.
>
>> But -- Why believe the obvious, when you could be a "CT Nuthatch"?
>> Right?
>>
>
>What are you lying about this time? I have always said that the bullet
>transited.
Yep... just another piece in the puzzle that Tony contradicts CT'ers on.
Tony is nothing more than a LNT'er in CT'ers clothing.
David VP
Rant on as much as you like in your stupid anti-SBT ways....the fact
remains, the SBT was and still is the MOST LIKELY AND LOGICAL correct
solution to the shooting. Period. None of your silly anti-SBT
protestations (nor Mark Fuhrman's either, which are equally as silly)
will make the SBT any less logical and concrete than it is.
Once again (for time #3,439) --- The alternative (ANY realistic
alternative) to the SBT is far more crazy and untenable than is the
SBT. Why some people cannot see this obvious basic fact is simply
staggering.
But...that's your problem I suppose. You must deal with the kooksville
alternatives (not that we're ever likely to actually SEE and/or HEAR
what any of those kooksville CT SBT alternate theories might
entail...bullet-by-bullet -- but we can always dream of the day when a
logical and reasonable variant will surface).
>> "I wonder if you'll *ever* develop enough character and honesty to reply without snipping."
LOL. I succeeded! Good job, Ben-Kook -- you did not disappoint!
I deliberately "snipped" a few of Ben-boy's precious remarks (which he
DEMANDS with a vengeance that every single poster MUST respond to, or
else face the electric chair). I intentionally "snipped" a few items
from Ben's last tome of CT nonsense, just to see if he'd take the bait
and respond with something akin to this.....
"I wonder if you'll *ever* develop enough character and honesty to
reply without snipping."
And, like a duck takes to water, Benjamin did not fail me.
Nothing gets past Ben "The Snip-Detector" Holmes.
Amazing he'd even NOTICE a few items that were skipped ("snipped", his
favorite term, sorry) within such a morass of CT-flavored excrement.
But, The Snip-Meister sees all!
BTW, Ben --- You can stuff your "No Snipping" rule up any bodily
orifice of your choosing. I'm not going to be bound by your childish
"No Snipping" guidelines. I'll snip any of your lame Garrison-like CT
comments any time I feel like doing so. (Which is most of the time,
naturally.)
Nobody gives a damn anyway...about three people read this forum per day
(maybe 4). Tumbleweeds abound. Why do you even care if one of your
precious "Let's Free Saint Oswald" comments is truncated?
>> "But cowards will always be cowards, I suppose."
And CT kooks will always be kooky .... and bent on setting free a known
double-murderer....I suppose.
Kinda sad, huh?
See ya, kook.
~~bracing for The Ben-ster's next round of "snip, snip; coward, aren't
you?!" wrath~~
(I hope he doesn't disappoint me.)
David VP
And just exactly WHERE is the "bullet" in that Elm St. photo? Where?
Grizzlie Antagonist
<Cheerfully> Maybe nowhere.
2 millimeters, as your witness said, is not a CHUNK. It is a "flake".
Contrary to the claims of shaggy unkempt and unsanitary grassy knoll
leftists, CE399 is not "pristine". There is a faint curvature from
left to right, and its base is flattened and bent. I think that some
"flakes" of the metal jacket might conceivably be missing, don't you?
On the other hand, if you take a look at a picture of THE BASE of CE
399, you actually do see what a layman might describe as a "chunk" of
lead missing.
Oh, and by the way, you were somewhat selective in quoting Dr. Gregory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as specifically as you
can what those metallic fragments are by way of size
and shape, sir?
Dr. GREGORY. I would identify these fragments as
varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to
approximately 2 millimeters in diameter., and each
fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness.
They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of
metal.
Mr. SPECTER. What would your estimate be as to their
weight in total?
Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that they would be
weighed in micrograms which is very small amount of
weight. I don't know how to reduce it to ordinary
equivalents for you.
It is the kind of weighing that requires a microadjustable
scale, which means that it is something less than the
weight of a postage stamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I missed that comparison to the "postage stamp" in your post.
and I also missed the following quotation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. Is them sufficient metallic substance missing
from the back or rear end of that bullet to account for the
metallic substance which you have described in the
Governor's wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. It is possible but I don't know enough about
the structure of bullets or this one in particular, to know
what is a normal complement of lead or for this particular
missile. It is irregular, but how much it may have lost, I
have no idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So while Dr. Gregory acknowledges himself to be not an expert as to the
structure of bullets, he doesn't find any troubling contrast between
his lay examination of CE 399 and the metallic fragments found in
Connally.
You people are evil. You really are. None of you can lie straight in
bed.
RicBi...@aol.com
David VP wrote:
> >> "Show us on CE399 where a 2-millimeter chunk is missing."
>
> Only if YOU promise to show ME those OTHER THREE OR FOUR missing
> bullets that CTers say WENT INTO TWO BODIES (JFK/JBC) on 11/22 (to
> replace CE399).
You're making a mistake lumping all "CTer's" together. Why should I
have to show you something I don't believe happened?
> Deal?
No, but I would like you to point out where on CE 399 a two millimeter
flake is missing. Did you actually look at a ruler? Two millimeters
is not that small. Do you believe what the witness said regarding the
size of the residue in Connally or not?
> And -- Can you (or any CTer) manage to conjure up a reasonable,
> believable alternative to the SBT shooting scenario. Can you do that
> without utilizing the words "Faked Evidence" in such a scenario?
Yes. I've done so before on this newsgroup a few years ago. If you
are really interested, rather than type up the whole thing again, I'll
try to find it on the Google archives and post it. In short - four
shots, one from the DalTex building and three from the TSBD. Three
hits, one miss. And yes, I realize that I am in a very small minority
of "CTers" that don't believe in a shot from the grassy knoll.
RicBi...@aol.com
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> RicBi...@aol.com wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > > MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
> > > metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"
> > >
> > > DR. GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from
> > > five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
> > > in diameter., and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
> > > thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal."
> >
> > Take out a ruler how long 2 millimeters are. Now show us on CE399
> > where a 2 millimeter chunk is missing.
>
>
> <Cheerfully> Maybe nowhere.
>
> 2 millimeters, as your witness said, is not a CHUNK. It is a "flake".
Well, the word "chunk" doesn't really imply largeness. There are such
things as tiny chunks, you know. ;-) But, OK, show us where a two
millimeter "flake" is missing from CE399?
> Contrary to the claims of shaggy unkempt and unsanitary grassy knoll
> leftists, CE399 is not "pristine". There is a faint curvature from
> left to right, and its base is flattened and bent. I think that some
> "flakes" of the metal jacket might conceivably be missing, don't you?
Maybe. But something that's 2 mm long? From where?
> On the other hand, if you take a look at a picture of THE BASE of CE
> 399, you actually do see what a layman might describe as a "chunk" of
> lead missing.
Is that where you think the 2 mm fragment came from? How would a
transiting bullet lose mass from the base of the bullet? How would
that work?
> Oh, and by the way, you were somewhat selective in quoting Dr. Gregory:
Yes, I was. That's because I was only interested in the 2-mm comment.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as specifically as you
> can what those metallic fragments are by way of size
> and shape, sir?
>
> Dr. GREGORY. I would identify these fragments as
> varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to
> approximately 2 millimeters in diameter., and each
> fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness.
> They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of
> metal.
>
> Mr. SPECTER. What would your estimate be as to their
> weight in total?
>
> Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that they would be
> weighed in micrograms which is very small amount of
> weight. I don't know how to reduce it to ordinary
> equivalents for you.
>
> It is the kind of weighing that requires a microadjustable
> scale, which means that it is something less than the
> weight of a postage stamp.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, I missed that comparison to the "postage stamp" in your post.
> and I also missed the following quotation:
In my opinion it is much easier to estimate size from a visual
inspection rather than weight. How much do you think a 2-mm flake of
metal from CE399 would weigh?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. SPECTER. Is them sufficient metallic substance missing
> from the back or rear end of that bullet to account for the
> metallic substance which you have described in the
> Governor's wrist?
>
> Dr. GREGORY. It is possible but I don't know enough about
> the structure of bullets or this one in particular, to know
> what is a normal complement of lead or for this particular
> missile. It is irregular, but how much it may have lost, I
> have no idea.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So while Dr. Gregory acknowledges himself to be not an expert as to the
> structure of bullets, he doesn't find any troubling contrast between
> his lay examination of CE 399 and the metallic fragments found in
> Connally.
>
> You people are evil. You really are. None of you can lie straight in
> bed.
We're not really evil. Do you really think we are? If so, why do you
spend so much time on this newsgroup? Are you seriously trying to
fight evil in this world by posting on a JFK conspiracy newsgroup?
That's kind of funny when you think about it. ;-) It kind of reminds
me of Jerry McNally. Whatever happened to him anyway?
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... snip snip... Gutless coward, aren't you, Davey-boy?
In article <1148450899....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> You'll just have to live with the fact that the photo exists.
>
>And just exactly WHERE is the "bullet" in that Elm St. photo? Where?
Where's the rest of this post?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> ...It'll be easier for you to wean yourself off such a silly {SBT} theory.
>
>Rant on as much as you like in your stupid
And evidence based...
> anti-SBT ways....the fact
>remains, the SBT was and still is the MOST LIKELY AND LOGICAL correct
>solution to the shooting. Period.
And yet, you can't seem to refute the evidence that I cite. You feel the need
to snip everything... why is that, Davey-boy?
If the SBT really *IS* what you claim it is, you shouldn't need to snip
everything, and you'd be able to respond.
>None of your silly anti-SBT
>protestations (nor Mark Fuhrman's either, which are equally as silly)
>will make the SBT any less logical and concrete than it is.
Nope. I'm referring to the evidence.
>Once again (for time #3,439) --- The alternative (ANY realistic
>alternative) to the SBT is far more crazy and untenable than is the
>SBT. Why some people cannot see this obvious basic fact is simply
>staggering.
Perhaps because most people are smarter than you take them for?
>But...that's your problem I suppose. You must deal with the kooksville
>alternatives
Being in the mainstream of up to 90% of America that believes that there was a
conspiracy is not a problem.
It would be a problem if I were in the very small minority that thinks the WCR
stands.
>(not that we're ever likely to actually SEE and/or HEAR
>what any of those kooksville CT SBT alternate theories might
>entail...bullet-by-bullet -- but we can always dream of the day when a
>logical and reasonable variant will surface).
You can keep this lie up as long as you want. The simple fact is that several
excellent recreations of the assassination have been published, and you haven't
attempted to refute any of them.
Nor can you.
The fact that you feel the need to keep lying about this shows just who the true
nutcases in this forum are.
>> I wonder if you'll *ever* develop enough character and honesty to reply
>> without snipping."
>
>LOL. I succeeded! Good job, Ben-Kook -- you did not disappoint!
What? You succeeded at demonstrating yet again what a coward you are? And how
dishonest you are?
>I deliberately "snipped" a few of Ben-boy's precious remarks
Actually, you've snipped quite a bit more. Try to be honest.
>(which he
>DEMANDS with a vengeance that every single poster MUST respond to, or
>else face the electric chair). I intentionally "snipped" a few items
>from Ben's last tome of CT nonsense, just to see if he'd take the bait
>and respond with something akin to this.....
>
>"I wonder if you'll *ever* develop enough character and honesty to
>reply without snipping."
>
>And, like a duck takes to water, Benjamin did not fail me.
>Nothing gets past Ben "The Snip-Detector" Holmes.
Yep... lies and deception will always be pointed out by me.
>Amazing he'd even NOTICE a few items that were skipped ("snipped", his
>favorite term, sorry) within such a morass of CT-flavored excrement.
>But, The Snip-Meister sees all!
You seem to have a poor conception of what snipping is involved. Gutless
coward, aren't you?
>BTW, Ben --- You can stuff your "No Snipping" rule up any bodily
>orifice of your choosing. I'm not going to be bound by your childish
>"No Snipping" guidelines. I'll snip any of your lame Garrison-like CT
>comments any time I feel like doing so. (Which is most of the time,
>naturally.)
Gutless coward, aren't you?
>Nobody gives a damn anyway...about three people read this forum per day
>(maybe 4). Tumbleweeds abound. Why do you even care if one of your
>precious "Let's Free Saint Oswald" comments is truncated?
Gutless coward, aren't you?
>> But cowards will always be cowards, I suppose.
>
>And CT kooks will always be kooky .... and bent on setting free a known
>double-murderer....I suppose.
Too bad you can't support anything based on the evidence, isn't it?
tomnln
where they put.........
The First Autopsy Report
The Second Autopsy Report
The Note Oswald delivered to the Dallas FBI Office
The Testimony of James Wilcott
The "Steel Jacketed Bullet" Recovered from the Walker Shooting
The Missing Brain from the autopsy
The Missing Slides from the autopsy
The Automatic Shells from the Tippit Shooting
The autopsy Film taken bt Pitzer
and the beat goes on
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148442356....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I usually get your kind of responses from Felon Supporters.
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148444703.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
where they put.........
The First Autopsy Report
The Second Autopsy Report
The Note Oswald delivered to the Dallas FBI Office
The Testimony of James Wilcott
The "Steel Jacketed Bullet" Recovered from the Walker Shooting
The Missing Brain from the autopsy
The Missing Slides from the autopsy
The Automatic Shells from the Tippit Shooting
The autopsy Film taken bt Pitzer
and the beat goes on
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148450899....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> In article <weednVEZ5fD...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> David VP wrote:
>>>>> "Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing
>>>>> through the body. They merely guessed."
>>> Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
>>> path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
>>> 11/23). So what?
>>>
>> They had a choice,
>
> No, they didn't. And Tony knows this quite well, so once again, I'm going to
> label him for what he is, a liar.
>
> The prosectors were *ORDERED* not to dissect the path of the wound. And Tony
> knows this.
>
> There was no "choice" involved.
>
Again, you are just repeating what I said.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <weednVEZ5fD...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>"Don't rely on the autopsy report. They didn't even document a bullet passing
>>>>>> through the body. They merely guessed."
>>>> Sure they "guessed". They had no choice BUT to "guess" re. the bullet
>>>> path (given the fact they didn't even know about the throat wound until
>>>> 11/23). So what?
>>>>
>>> They had a choice,
>>
>> No, they didn't. And Tony knows this quite well, so once again, I'm going to
>> label him for what he is, a liar.
>>
>> The prosectors were *ORDERED* not to dissect the path of the wound. And Tony
>> knows this.
>>
>> There was no "choice" involved.
>>
>
>Again, you are just repeating what I said.
No, Tony, I'm not. You stated that "They had a choice [of whether to dissect
the wound path or not]" I've corrected you - they did *NOT* have a choice. The
prosectors were *ORDERED* not to dissect the path of the bullet. The only
"choice" they had was to either follow orders, or be court martialed.
That is *NOT* the choice that you were talking about. You lied, Tony.
Do you plan on retracting your false statement Tony?
Todd W. Vaughan
>My crystal ball...<
Well, that explains much.
Todd
post without snipping.
aeffects
Welcome back, this is getting boring, VonPain getting his assed kicked
everytime he posts...
I gonna call the Von Pain, the 'snip&dipper'. Perhaps you can give Lone
Neuter's hereabouts something to be proud of.
I doubt it, but what the hell, eh?
Todd W. Vaughan
Onward.
Got that pesky Zapruder film forgery figured out yet? Working hard I
hope? Long hours? Little compensation?
That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles. Make
it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
alter them. Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away. Conspiracy
central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
Todd
P.S. "I gonna call the Von Pain, the 'snip&dipper'." LMFAO. Hey Dave, I
gonna call the Healey the "badgrammarguy".
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
Toddy: My crystal ball has been 100% accurate. Gutless coward, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>Hey David Healy! Or is it Healey? I can never keep it straight.
>
>Onward.
>
>Got that pesky Zapruder film forgery figured out yet? Working hard I
>hope? Long hours? Little compensation?
It's already been done. Several books on the topic by different authors... you
really should take the time to learn a topic that you think you can spout off
on.
>That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
>with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
That is, unfortunately for cowards holding your minority belief, exactly what
the evidence shows.
>Make it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
Actually, the professional photographers were moved far back in the parade, so
they wouldn't be taking inconvenient photos. Most of what we have is amateur
stuff.
But you have no explanation for this, as usual. Coward, aren't you?
>Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
>alter them.
Once again, exactly what the evidence shows.
>Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
>photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
>could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
No, many of the altered films and photos were *NOT* allowed back in the public
domain.
Interestingly, it's those photos that eluded the FBI that are quite damaging to
the "official" view. Altgens' famous photo, for example.
The WC refused to even print it without severely cropping it. A precursor to
the cowards around here that snip away...
>Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
>to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away.
No, they made plans for the professionals to be far away. Dealey Plaza had a
fraction of the people that were around just blocks before.
LNT'ers can't explain why the professional photographers were moved from their
normal spot in the parade.
So they don't even try.
>Conspiracy
>central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
>another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
>
>Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
Whoever controls the investigation, controls the evidence. Such a simple
concept that you can't avoid, Coward.
David VP
LOL.
Which, evidently, means (to Ben-kook) that such footage is harmless to
the conspiracy henchmen...since it's "amateur" in nature.
I guess the henchmen felt that Zapruder and Moorman and Nix and
Muchmore and Towner and the other Towner and Willis and Bronson and
Hughes (et al) were ALL going to be aiming their cameras at their feet
during the 8 seconds of shooting in DP, instead of at JFK's car.
El-Oh-Ellll!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Most of what we have is amateur stuff.
>
>LOL.
>
>Which, evidently, means (to Ben-kook) that such footage is harmless to
Wrong film type, wrong exposure times or settings... many examples abound. But
fool that you are, you know nothing of the facts, nor probably of photography,
so you can't answer.
Nor, I note, did you explain why the professionals were intentionally moved to
the back of the parade. That somehow got snipped...
Coward, aren't you?
>I guess the henchmen felt that Zapruder and Moorman and Nix and
>Muchmore and Towner and the other Towner and Willis and Bronson and
>Hughes (et al) were ALL going to aiming their cameras at their feet
>during the 8 seconds of shooting in DP, instead of at JFK's car.
>
>El-Oh-Ellll!
Coward, aren't you?
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Hey David Healy! Or is it Healey? I can never keep it straight.
Healy, you can find it right under the title; Technical Aspects of Film
Alteration, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Catfeet Press 2003 pg's.
113-145 and my writing does leave a lot to be desired, however Harrison
Livingstone said he found it 'refreshing'. Seeing that I usually HIRE
writers, this was a change....
> Onward.
>
> Got that pesky Zapruder film forgery figured out yet? Working hard I
> hope? Long hours? Little compensation?
figured out? Might want to ask that question to Roland Zavada, GaryM
and the others, Rollie enlisted Ray Fielding author of Special Effects
Cinematography, 1965. You know the guy I kept throwing up in your face
regarding film alteration capabilities during the early 60's era. Hell,
Ray did all my work for me, I have noticed, the Lone Neuter side of the
Z-film argument haven't recovered yet.... As for the Dealey Plaza
'seemless' film advocates, they're all treading water at Simkin's forum
waiting for Rollies upcoming manifesto -- the new and improved Zavada
report... pining all their hope on film emulsion and grain... If they
want to advance the argument, they know what they have to produce, they
CAN'T nor if the could, WOULD...
I knew the possibilities regarding the Z-film 20 minutes after a one
hard serious look.
> That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
> with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
multiple angles ... hmm, I heard that somewhere -- seems to me the only
comment I made regarding DP shooting positions involves two shooters
from the rear, and one insurnace shooter to the front! You arguing for
more positions these day's? If so, I have to hand it to you, you may be
keeping a open mind...
Make
> it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
maybe it did.... but don't let me interrupt your SBT day
> Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
> alter them.
according to Orville Nix, that exactly what happend to his film, you do
recall UPI got his film...
Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
> photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
> could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
Researchers in December 1963, come on now.... Let me ask you this
little gem of a question, where are the films that aired so soon after
the assassination, and who from today's day and age can confirm and
certify that ANY one of those 'unfound' films, that aired, were indeed
the films that aired? Are there any, ANY airchecks available...?Shall
we take your word, Gary Mack's word?
> Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
> to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away. Conspiracy
> central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
> another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
Why did the FBI find it necessary to put out a request (at film process
venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day? Are you saying that
is a falehood?
> Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
the assassination? or the alteration? Assassination, who knows -- the
Z-film alteration? Perhaps you might ask Roland Zavada, Doug Horne --
hell, Robert Groden can, certainly Mo Weitzman may have a few answers.
Hell, he told (to Roland Zavada) and the listening world how to do what
you Lone Neuter's thought was impossible, get 8mm reversal film to a
35mm negative -- from then on, the world is at your alteration feet....
also told what to look for regarding, right to left and left to right,
emulsion side - stuff.
You guys need Ray Fielding on this gig, I look forward to his comments,
if the EVER show up, which i'm beginning to doubt....
> Tod
>
> P.S. "I gonna call the Von Pain, the 'snip&dipper'." LMFAO. Hey Dave, I
> gonna call the Healey the "badgrammarguy".
of course you are -- your left with no choice, unless you'd like to
debate media composing?? Where do you think AEFFECTS comes from,
35mm-65mm film dumped to digital files/video composing of the latter
era's are now performed in the digital domain. Adobe After Aeffects,
both 2k and 4k film --- just like loading up a multi-projector Oxberry
optical film printer -- cleaner and faster and more accurate these
day's. Now to Apple's Shake application, think the last 7 Oscar's Best
Film[s] were composed on Shake....
So, who needs Gramma, guy? I'm a image guy....
aeffects
ahhh -- the one and only; seamless film 'dupe'..... you'll have no
problem giving us a example of this film togetherness, yes? Till then,
back to your 'daBug' promotional campaign....
> El-Oh-Ellll!
Todd W. Vaughan
Healy (that's without the 2nd "e"),
aeffects wrote:
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > Hey David Healy! Or is it Healey? I can never keep it straight.
>
> Healy, you can find it right under the title; Technical Aspects of Film
> Alteration, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Catfeet Press 2003 pg's.
> 113-145 and my writing does leave a lot to be desired, however Harrison
> Livingstone said he found it 'refreshing'. Seeing that I usually HIRE
> writers, this was a change....
>
Livingstone found your writting refreshing? What, when compared to his
own? Good Lord man. LMFAO! x 3
> > Onward.
> >
> > Got that pesky Zapruder film forgery figured out yet? Working hard I
> > hope? Long hours? Little compensation?
>
> figured out? Might want to ask that question to Roland Zavada, GaryM
> and the others, Rollie enlisted Ray Fielding author of Special Effects
> Cinematography, 1965. You know the guy I kept throwing up in your face
> regarding film alteration capabilities during the early 60's era. Hell,
> Ray did all my work for me, I have noticed, the Lone Neuter side of the
> Z-film argument haven't recovered yet....
Recovered from what?
>As for the Dealey Plaza
> 'seemless' film advocates, they're all treading water at Simkin's forum
> waiting for Rollies upcoming manifesto -- the new and improved Zavada
> report... pining all their hope on film emulsion and grain... If they
> want to advance the argument, they know what they have to produce, they
> CAN'T nor if the could, WOULD...
I strongly suspect that you have no concept of how the Dealey Plaza
fims and photgraphs correlate with each other.
>
> I knew the possibilities regarding the Z-film 20 minutes after a one
> hard serious look.
>
> > That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
> > with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
>
> multiple angles ... hmm, I heard that somewhere -- seems to me the only
> comment I made regarding DP shooting positions involves two shooters
> from the rear, and one insurnace shooter to the front!
Well, 2 gunman would be more than one angle, right, Einstien?
>You arguing for
> more positions these day's? If so, I have to hand it to you, you may be
> keeping a open mind...
I DO have an open mind. I'm open to another gunman in Dealey Plaza.
Never, EVER, claimed I was not. Guess you jumped to conclusion,s huh?
>
> Make
> > it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
>
> maybe it did.... but don't let me interrupt your SBT day
Don't let me interupt your crazy phony Zapruder film week.
>
> > Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
> > alter them.
>
> according to Orville Nix, that exactly what happend to his film, you do
> recall UPI got his film...
There were supposedly some splices. Hmm, do you think there might be an
innocent explanation for that? Is that even a remote possibility on
planet Healy?
>
> Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
> > photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
> > could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
>
> Researchers in December 1963, come on now....
Yes, and researchers throughout the years.
What, you think there was no ionterest in the assassination in December
of 1963? Mary Ferrel and Penn Jones are rolling over in their graves.
What a nice tribute you've given them.
>Let me ask you this
> little gem of a question, where are the films that aired so soon after
> the assassination, and who from today's day and age can confirm and
> certify that ANY one of those 'unfound' films, that aired, were indeed
> the films that aired? Are there any, ANY airchecks available...?Shall
> we take your word, Gary Mack's word?
What films that aired? Aired where? When? By Whom?
>
> > Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
> > to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away. Conspiracy
> > central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
> > another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
>
> Why did the FBI find it necessary to put out a request (at film process
> venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day? Are you saying that
> is a falehood?
Hmmm, perhaps they were investigating the crime, numb nuts?
But I suspose if the FBI HAD NOT "put out a request (at film process
venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day", then you'de be
asking, "Why didn't the FBI "put out a request (at film process
venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day"?
LMFAO. Again. You amuse me.
>
> > Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
>
> the assassination? or the alteration? Assassination, who knows -- the
> Z-film alteration? Perhaps you might ask Roland Zavada, Doug Horne --
> hell, Robert Groden can, certainly Mo Weitzman may have a few answers.
> Hell, he told (to Roland Zavada) and the listening world how to do what
> you Lone Neuter's thought was impossible, get 8mm reversal film to a
> 35mm negative -- from then on, the world is at your alteration feet....
> also told what to look for regarding, right to left and left to right,
> emulsion side - stuff.
You want me to ask Zavada, Horne, Groden, or Weitzman who came up with
this plan?
Short on proof, I see.
LMFAO. Again. X3. Again.
>
> You guys need Ray Fielding on this gig, I look forward to his comments,
> if the EVER show up, which i'm beginning to doubt....
>
> > Tod
> >
> > P.S. "I gonna call the Von Pain, the 'snip&dipper'." LMFAO. Hey Dave, I
> > gonna call the Healey the "badgrammarguy".
>
> of course you are -- your left with no choice, unless you'd like to
> debate media composing?? Where do you think AEFFECTS comes from,
> 35mm-65mm film dumped to digital files/video composing of the latter
> era's are now performed in the digital domain. Adobe After Aeffects,
> both 2k and 4k film --- just like loading up a multi-projector Oxberry
> optical film printer -- cleaner and faster and more accurate these
> day's. Now to Apple's Shake application, think the last 7 Oscar's Best
> Film[s] were composed on Shake....
>
> So, who needs Gramma, guy? I'm a image guy....
I already showed you I know where AEFFECTS comes from. Check your
memory banks.
Oh, and it's "Adobe After Effects", not "Adobe After Aeffects".
You're "Aeffects", remember?
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
>>Ben,
>>>My crystal ball...<
>>Well, that explains much.
>>Todd
>>post without snipping.
>Toddy: My crystal ball has been 100% accurate. Gutless coward, aren't you?
Again.
LMFAO.
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
>>Ben,
>>>My crystal ball...<
>>Well, that explains much.
>>Todd
>>post without snipping.
>Toddy: My crystal ball has been 100% accurate. Gutless coward, aren't you?
Gutless coward? Hey, try manning up for a change and explaining exactly
why you asked me to say "Hi" to Tomnln?
Got an answer?
Todd
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Healy (that's without the 2nd "e"),
>
> aeffects wrote:
> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > > Hey David Healy! Or is it Healey? I can never keep it straight.
> >
> > Healy, you can find it right under the title; Technical Aspects of Film
> > Alteration, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Catfeet Press 2003 pg's.
> > 113-145 and my writing does leave a lot to be desired, however Harrison
> > Livingstone said he found it 'refreshing'. Seeing that I usually HIRE
> > writers, this was a change....
> >
>
>
> Livingstone found your writting refreshing? What, when compared to his
> own? Good Lord man. LMFAO! x 3
>
Harry on the Lone Neuter's shit list these day's? Funny, he didn't tell
me that -- I do know he's been giving Roland Zavada a little
indegestion lately, by what the hell, reviewing murder investigation
evidence has a way of doing that.....
> > > Onward.
> > >
> > > Got that pesky Zapruder film forgery figured out yet? Working hard I
> > > hope? Long hours? Little compensation?
> >
> > figured out? Might want to ask that question to Roland Zavada, GaryM
> > and the others, Rollie enlisted Ray Fielding author of Special Effects
> > Cinematography, 1965. You know the guy I kept throwing up in your face
> > regarding film alteration capabilities during the early 60's era. Hell,
> > Ray did all my work for me, I have noticed, the Lone Neuter side of the
> > Z-film argument haven't recovered yet....
>
>
> Recovered from what?
gott'a get with the times there.... you're falling behind
>
> >As for the Dealey Plaza
> > 'seemless' film advocates, they're all treading water at Simkin's forum
> > waiting for Rollies upcoming manifesto -- the new and improved Zavada
> > report... pining all their hope on film emulsion and grain... If they
> > want to advance the argument, they know what they have to produce, they
> > CAN'T nor if the could, WOULD...
>
>
> I strongly suspect that you have no concept of how the Dealey Plaza
> fims and photgraphs correlate with each other.
>
Then you'll pick up the mantle BMiller carried for the past 4 years and
failed to deliver, that IS good news -- When can we expect the seamless
Dealey Plaza film comparison document... Jesus you guys got a docu done
for HISTORY Channel re the films of Dealey Plaza and you can't get what
a third rate Producer could get done...?
> >
> > I knew the possibilities regarding the Z-film 20 minutes after a one
> > hard serious look.
> >
> > > That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
> > > with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
> >
> > multiple angles ... hmm, I heard that somewhere -- seems to me the only
> > comment I made regarding DP shooting positions involves two shooters
> > from the rear, and one insurnace shooter to the front!
>
>
> Well, 2 gunman would be more than one angle, right, Einstien?
That Lurkers is what we call "dancing"
>
> >You arguing for
> > more positions these day's? If so, I have to hand it to you, you may be
> > keeping a open mind...
>
>
> I DO have an open mind. I'm open to another gunman in Dealey Plaza.
> Never, EVER, claimed I was not. Guess you jumped to conclusion,s huh?
read then re-read my sentence Gumba... I no speaky Anglesh...
> >
> > Make
> > > it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
> >
> > maybe it did.... but don't let me interrupt your SBT day
>
>
> Don't let me interupt your crazy phony Zapruder film week.
>
Todd, you of ALL people have never, EVER interrupted my Zapruder film
week, only took me 20 minutes, remember
> >
> > > Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
> > > alter them.
> >
> > according to Orville Nix, that exactly what happend to his film, you do
> > recall UPI got his film...
>
>
> There were supposedly some splices. Hmm, do you think there might be an
> innocent explanation for that? Is that even a remote possibility on
> planet Healy?
>
>
> >
> > Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
> > > photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
> > > could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
> >
> > Researchers in December 1963, come on now....
>
>
> Yes, and researchers throughout the years.
>
> What, you think there was no ionterest in the assassination in December
> of 1963? Mary Ferrel and Penn Jones are rolling over in their graves.
> What a nice tribute you've given them.
>
>
> >Let me ask you this
> > little gem of a question, where are the films that aired so soon after
> > the assassination, and who from today's day and age can confirm and
> > certify that ANY one of those 'unfound' films, that aired, were indeed
> > the films that aired? Are there any, ANY airchecks available...?Shall
> > we take your word, Gary Mack's word?
>
>
> What films that aired? Aired where? When? By Whom?
You better get GaryM and get your story squared away, if i have to tell
you...
>
> >
> > > Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
> > > to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away. Conspiracy
> > > central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
> > > another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
> >
> > Why did the FBI find it necessary to put out a request (at film process
> > venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day? Are you saying that
> > is a falehood?
>
>
> Hmmm, perhaps they were investigating the crime, numb nuts?
Now come on Toad .... you want to go down that road again -- let's
leave the McAdams school of nonesense out of this
> But I suspose if the FBI HAD NOT "put out a request (at film process
> venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day", then you'de be
> asking, "Why didn't the FBI "put out a request (at film process
> venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day"?
oh, not necessary -- as old Harold said: just beat them over the head
with the evidence, that friends and neighbors is why lone neuter's
avoid evidence and testimony debate like the plague.
> LMFAO. Again. You amuse me.
I'm sure I do.... LM'F'AO
>
> >
> > > Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
> >
> > the assassination? or the alteration? Assassination, who knows -- the
> > Z-film alteration? Perhaps you might ask Roland Zavada, Doug Horne --
> > hell, Robert Groden can, certainly Mo Weitzman may have a few answers.
> > Hell, he told (to Roland Zavada) and the listening world how to do what
> > you Lone Neuter's thought was impossible, get 8mm reversal film to a
> > 35mm negative -- from then on, the world is at your alteration feet....
> > also told what to look for regarding, right to left and left to right,
> > emulsion side - stuff.
>
>
> You want me to ask Zavada, Horne, Groden, or Weitzman who came up with
> this plan?
>
> Short on proof, I see.
short on proof, those aren't my words Zavada put into his report, you
might read it sometime, all I need....
> LMFAO. Again. X3. Again.
uh-huh :)
>
> >
> > You guys need Ray Fielding on this gig, I look forward to his comments,
> > if the EVER show up, which i'm beginning to doubt....
> >
> > > Tod
> > >
> > > P.S. "I gonna call the Von Pain, the 'snip&dipper'." LMFAO. Hey Dave, I
> > > gonna call the Healey the "badgrammarguy".
> >
> > of course you are -- your left with no choice, unless you'd like to
> > debate media composing?? Where do you think AEFFECTS comes from,
> > 35mm-65mm film dumped to digital files/video composing of the latter
> > era's are now performed in the digital domain. Adobe After Aeffects,
> > both 2k and 4k film --- just like loading up a multi-projector Oxberry
> > optical film printer -- cleaner and faster and more accurate these
> > day's. Now to Apple's Shake application, think the last 7 Oscar's Best
> > Film[s] were composed on Shake....
> >
> > So, who needs Gramma, guy? I'm a image guy....
>
> I already showed you I know where AEFFECTS comes from. Check your
> memory banks.
MY memory banks why, who cares?
> Oh, and it's "Adobe After Effects", not "Adobe After Aeffects".
>
> You're "Aeffects", remember?
thats Mr. Aeffects, especially for compositing neophytes
>
... I will do> Todd
aeffects
stationary targets with a MCarcano on the plains of Wisconsin
someplace? That "manning up"? CT'er's need this type of info...
Todd W. Vaughan
>what does "manning up" mean? That have something to do with shooting
>stationary targets with a MCarcano on the plains of Wisconsin
>someplace? That "manning up"? CT'er's need this type of info...
Aw c'mon, Dave, you don't know what the phrase "man up" means?
How about "grow a pair"? Ever heard that one?
Todd
P.S. I've never fired any type of weapon in Wisconson. Have you ever
fired a Carcano? Anywhere? I mean, I suspect you think it's an inferior
weapon, am I right?
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
LOL!!! Start with Altgens and the extant Z-film.
>> I knew the possibilities regarding the Z-film 20 minutes after a one
>> hard serious look.
>>
>> > That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
>> > with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
>>
>> multiple angles ... hmm, I heard that somewhere -- seems to me the only
>> comment I made regarding DP shooting positions involves two shooters
>> from the rear, and one insurnace shooter to the front!
>
>
>Well, 2 gunman would be more than one angle, right, Einstien?
Someone who wishes to insult someone's intelligence by reference to Einstein
should at least spell Albert's name correctly. Otherwise, your insult falls
rather flat.
>>You arguing for
>> more positions these day's? If so, I have to hand it to you, you may be
>> keeping a open mind...
>
>
>I DO have an open mind. I'm open to another gunman in Dealey Plaza.
>Never, EVER, claimed I was not. Guess you jumped to conclusion,s huh?
And yet, you illustrate what a gutless coward you are each time you continue to
evade posts that provide the evidence *YOU* asked for.
FBI intimidation, anyone?
>> Make
>> > it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
>>
>> maybe it did.... but don't let me interrupt your SBT day
>
>
>Don't let me interupt your crazy phony Zapruder film week.
>
>
>>
>> > Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
>> > alter them.
>>
>> according to Orville Nix, that exactly what happend to his film, you do
>> recall UPI got his film...
>
>
>There were supposedly some splices. Hmm, do you think there might be an
>innocent explanation for that? Is that even a remote possibility on
>planet Healy?
I'm sure that LNT'ers would love to explain 'em.
>> Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
>> > photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
>> > could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
>>
>> Researchers in December 1963, come on now....
>
>
>Yes, and researchers throughout the years.
LNT'ers have often claimed that the extant Z-film was available right away. The
facts are, of course, that it simply wasn't widely available until years later,
and it's only been rather recently that high quality prints were available.
>What, you think there was no ionterest in the assassination in December
>of 1963? Mary Ferrel and Penn Jones are rolling over in their graves.
>What a nice tribute you've given them.
Sounds like straw to me...
>>Let me ask you this
>> little gem of a question, where are the films that aired so soon after
>> the assassination, and who from today's day and age can confirm and
>> certify that ANY one of those 'unfound' films, that aired, were indeed
>> the films that aired? Are there any, ANY airchecks available...?Shall
>> we take your word, Gary Mack's word?
>
>
>What films that aired? Aired where? When? By Whom?
>
>
>>
>> > Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
>> > to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away. Conspiracy
>> > central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
>> > another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
>>
>> Why did the FBI find it necessary to put out a request (at film process
>> venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day? Are you saying that
>> is a falehood?
>
>
>Hmmm, perhaps they were investigating the crime, numb nuts?
>
>But I suspose if the FBI HAD NOT "put out a request (at film process
>venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day", then you'de be
>asking, "Why didn't the FBI "put out a request (at film process
>venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day"?
>
>LMFAO. Again. You amuse me.
Citing the historical record "amuses" you? The question is valid, and it's
interesting that you evaded the fact that it puts to rest your silly implication
that no-one *was* "able to get all of those films, at one point or another, and
alter them to hide the dirty deed."
>> > Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
>>
>> the assassination? or the alteration? Assassination, who knows -- the
>> Z-film alteration? Perhaps you might ask Roland Zavada, Doug Horne --
>> hell, Robert Groden can, certainly Mo Weitzman may have a few answers.
>> Hell, he told (to Roland Zavada) and the listening world how to do what
>> you Lone Neuter's thought was impossible, get 8mm reversal film to a
>> 35mm negative -- from then on, the world is at your alteration feet....
>> also told what to look for regarding, right to left and left to right,
>> emulsion side - stuff.
>
>
>You want me to ask Zavada, Horne, Groden, or Weitzman who came up with
>this plan?
Why? Do you suppose they were in on it?
>Short on proof, I see.
That the Z-film was altered has so much proof for it that you can't even deal
with it. Would you like to try?
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>Ben,
>
>>>Ben,
>
>>>>My crystal ball...<
>
>>>Well, that explains much.
>
>>>Todd
>
>>>post without snipping.
>
>>Toddy: My crystal ball has been 100% accurate. Gutless coward, aren't you?
>
>
>Gutless coward?
Yep. You can't point to a *SINGLE* point on which I've predicted LNT'er
behavior *in advance* being wrong, can you?
>Hey, try manning up for a change and explaining exactly
>why you asked me to say "Hi" to Tomnln?
>
>Got an answer?
Absolutely! And as soon as you respond to the FBI intimidation post in detail,
snipping *NONE* of it, I'll be happy to answer *your* questions.
But why imply that I'm not much of a man for not responding to a silly question
that relates in no way to the assassination, when for months you've been ducking
the evidence and citations I provided that DIRECTLY relate to this case, and
that YOU HAD ASKED FOR?
Don't you suppose that lurkers might suspect that *YOU'RE* not much of a man?
>Todd
aeffects
Listen real close, anything that goes bang, and a projectile exits the
barrel of a weapon, is dangerous, inferior weapon or not -- what I find
rather funny about JFK related Carcano commentary, and the *inferior*
comments in particular are; THE comments come from those that have
never, EVER "experienced hostile intent (fire)", that's longhand for
someone is trying to blow your ass away...
I suspect the Ben's of the world understand *perfectly* what I talking
about ESPECIALLY this Memorial Day Weekend...
btw, Ben, have a quiet and reflective weekend...Thanks to you and every
Veteran's service for our country...
David Healy
Todd W. Vaughan
OK. Let's.
You think there's a discrepancy between one of the Altgens photos
(which one?) and the Zapruder film?
Lay it out.
>
>
>
> >> I knew the possibilities regarding the Z-film 20 minutes after a one
> >> hard serious look.
> >>
> >> > That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
> >> > with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
> >>
> >> multiple angles ... hmm, I heard that somewhere -- seems to me the only
> >> comment I made regarding DP shooting positions involves two shooters
> >> from the rear, and one insurnace shooter to the front!
> >
> >
> >Well, 2 gunman would be more than one angle, right, Einstien?
>
>
> Someone who wishes to insult someone's intelligence by reference to Einstein
> should at least spell Albert's name correctly. Otherwise, your insult falls
> rather flat.
>
So I typoed the "i" and the "e". OK, I stand corrected.
Good Job Bean.
>
> >>You arguing for
> >> more positions these day's? If so, I have to hand it to you, you may be
> >> keeping a open mind...
> >
> >
> >I DO have an open mind. I'm open to another gunman in Dealey Plaza.
> >Never, EVER, claimed I was not. Guess you jumped to conclusion,s huh?
>
>
> And yet, you illustrate what a gutless coward you are each time you continue to
> evade posts that provide the evidence *YOU* asked for.
>
> FBI intimidation, anyone?
>
And you illustrate how intellectually dishonest you are.
>
>
> >> Make
> >> > it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
> >>
> >> maybe it did.... but don't let me interrupt your SBT day
> >
> >
> >Don't let me interupt your crazy phony Zapruder film week.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
> >> > alter them.
> >>
> >> according to Orville Nix, that exactly what happend to his film, you do
> >> recall UPI got his film...
> >
> >
> >There were supposedly some splices. Hmm, do you think there might be an
> >innocent explanation for that? Is that even a remote possibility on
> >planet Healy?
>
>
> I'm sure that LNT'ers would love to explain 'em.
Just as I'm sure CT'ers would. With a CT'er spin, of course.
>
>
>
> >> Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
> >> > photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
> >> > could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
> >>
> >> Researchers in December 1963, come on now....
> >
> >
> >Yes, and researchers throughout the years.
>
>
> LNT'ers have often claimed that the extant Z-film was available right away. The
> facts are, of course, that it simply wasn't widely available until years later,
> and it's only been rather recently that high quality prints were available.
>
That's correct, as a complete film is was not available until years
later.
But some frames were available right away. Those published by Life
after about a week, and then those published in Volume 18.
Hmm, and those are the same frames that CT'ers use today to claim the
film is fake, right?
>
> >What, you think there was no ionterest in the assassination in December
> >of 1963? Mary Ferrel and Penn Jones are rolling over in their graves.
> >What a nice tribute you've given them.
>
>
> Sounds like straw to me...
>
>
But you don't really know, do you?
>
> >>Let me ask you this
> >> little gem of a question, where are the films that aired so soon after
> >> the assassination, and who from today's day and age can confirm and
> >> certify that ANY one of those 'unfound' films, that aired, were indeed
> >> the films that aired? Are there any, ANY airchecks available...?Shall
> >> we take your word, Gary Mack's word?
> >
> >
> >What films that aired? Aired where? When? By Whom?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
> >> > to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away. Conspiracy
> >> > central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
> >> > another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
> >>
> >> Why did the FBI find it necessary to put out a request (at film process
> >> venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day? Are you saying that
> >> is a falehood?
> >
> >
> >Hmmm, perhaps they were investigating the crime, numb nuts?
> >
> >But I suspose if the FBI HAD NOT "put out a request (at film process
> >venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day", then you'de be
> >asking, "Why didn't the FBI "put out a request (at film process
> >venues) for all films/photos shot in DP that day"?
> >
> >LMFAO. Again. You amuse me.
>
>
> Citing the historical record "amuses" you? The question is valid, and it's
> interesting that you evaded the fact that it puts to rest your silly implication
> that no-one *was* "able to get all of those films, at one point or another, and
> alter them to hide the dirty deed."
>
>
But don't we already know that UPI got Nix's film, not the FBI?
Is UPI in on the plot too, Ben?
>
> >> > Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
> >>
> >> the assassination? or the alteration? Assassination, who knows -- the
> >> Z-film alteration? Perhaps you might ask Roland Zavada, Doug Horne --
> >> hell, Robert Groden can, certainly Mo Weitzman may have a few answers.
> >> Hell, he told (to Roland Zavada) and the listening world how to do what
> >> you Lone Neuter's thought was impossible, get 8mm reversal film to a
> >> 35mm negative -- from then on, the world is at your alteration feet....
> >> also told what to look for regarding, right to left and left to right,
> >> emulsion side - stuff.
> >
> >
> >You want me to ask Zavada, Horne, Groden, or Weitzman who came up with
> >this plan?
>
>
> Why? Do you suppose they were in on it?
No, does David?
Do you?
>
>
> >Short on proof, I see.
>
>
> That the Z-film was altered has so much proof for it that you can't even deal
> with it. Would you like to try?
>
I've seen most, if not all, of the called proof. Frankly, I'm not even
close to being impressed.
Todd W. Vaughan
>Listen real close, anything that goes bang, and a projectile exits the
>barrel of a weapon, is dangerous, inferior weapon or not
I'm pleased to hear that. Really, I am.
>--- what I find
>rather funny about JFK related Carcano commentary, and the *inferior*
>comments in particular are; THE comments come from those that have
>never, EVER "experienced hostile intent (fire)", that's longhand for
>someone is trying to blow your ass away...
Hmm, I guess I'm not sure exactly how you think that relates.
How does the question of the Carcano's reliability, or comments about
the Carcano in general, relate to whether or not someone has
"experienced hostile intent (fire)".
Could you explain?
And don't most (if not all) of the *inferior* comments come from
CT'ers?
>I suspect the Ben's of the world understand *perfectly* what I talking
>about ESPECIALLY this Memorial Day Weekend...
>btw, Ben, have a quiet and reflective weekend...Thanks to you and every
>Veteran's service for our country...
Nice of you to thank Ben for his service to his country, and I
certainly second the thanks.
Thanks Ben. I truly appreciate your service.
But, that said, your thanking Ben is not exactly germane to Memorial
Day, is it? I mean, Ben's very much alive, right?
You're not one of those with the misconception that Memorial Day is to
honor veterans for their service, do you?
That's what we do on Veterans Day.
Todd
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1148516608.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >Hey David Healy! Or is it Healey? I can never keep it straight.
> >
> >Onward.
> >
> >Got that pesky Zapruder film forgery figured out yet? Working hard I
> >hope? Long hours? Little compensation?
>
>
> It's already been done. Several books on the topic by different authors... you
> really should take the time to learn a topic that you think you can spout off
> on.
<snicker> Ben has the crackpot books to prove it.
> >That's a hell of a plan they had in Dallas that day. Kill the president
> >with multiple gunmen firing multiple shots from multiple angles.
>
> That is, unfortunately for cowards holding your minority belief, exactly what
> the evidence shows.
Not what the witnesses reported, they mostly reported shots
originating from one direction. Of course CT have to ignore the
witnesses, they have to believe they were mistaken about this.
> >Make it so Goddamned obvious that the conspiracy would show up on film.
>
>
> Actually, the professional photographers were moved far back in the parade, so
> they wouldn't be taking inconvenient photos. Most of what we have is amateur
> stuff.
>
> But you have no explanation for this, as usual. Coward, aren't you?
There was a professional cameraman, with a camera loaded with film
turning the corner right when shots were being fired from the TSBD. He
even saw the rifle. Unless conspirators could know exactly where he
would be and exactly what he would film, they would be vulnerable to
film evidence. If this cameraman, (forget his name, it`s been a whole
week since I looked at this) would have filmed the SN, all the work
faking and planting evidence against Oz would be for naught.
> >Then obtain any of the original films and photos that were taken and
> >alter them.
>
> Once again, exactly what the evidence shows.
Once again, never take a kook`s word on what the evidence shows. It
almost always translates to how a kook decides to view the evidence.
> >Later, or within a few days, allow the altered films and
> >photos to make it into the public arena so "serious researchers"
> >could discover the alterations and blow the...whistle.
>
> No, many of the altered films and photos were *NOT* allowed back in the public
> domain.
>
> Interestingly, it's those photos that eluded the FBI that are quite damaging to
> the "official" view. Altgens' famous photo, for example.
>
> The WC refused to even print it without severely cropping it. A precursor to
> the cowards around here that snip away...
>
>
> >Of course Conspiracy Central knew in advance of everyone who was going
> >to be in Dealey Plaza that day, filming and snapping away.
>
> No, they made plans for the professionals to be far away. Dealey Plaza had a
> fraction of the people that were around just blocks before.
>
> LNT'ers can't explain why the professional photographers were moved from their
> normal spot in the parade.
>
> So they don't even try.
Waiting for kooks to actually establish why the move was made. "this
means this" is all kooks can offer. Who ordered it done, who told them
to do it, ect? If this is more "fingerprints" of the conspirators, we
have still more people involved, as the list gets larger and larger.
For this to be an actual part of some plan, this has to be A) someone
figure out that the photographers are a threat to thier plans, B) must
have the power and authority to have changes made in the motorcade, and
C) give orders to someone to have this done. It makes it very doable
for conspiracy writers to work up this chain of events to it`s origin
if all the people involved in this aren`t conspirators (of course kooks
try to have it both ways, that the conspiracy isn`t that big, but are
many people involved in scads of activity, like shuffling the
motorcade). So, please, just once in your accusations, detail and
document even this simple occurance back to it`s source. If, as you
assert this an example of conspiracy at work, how else to identify them
but by thier works? First show the the photographers were in a certain
place in the progession, then show that they were moved, then by who,
then tell who told that person to take that action. And so on back to
the Mastermind. Times ticking here, we have to drag these conspirators
out of thier Depends and make them face the music.
> >Conspiracy
> >central also was able to get all of those films, at one point or
> >another, and alter them to hide the dirty deed.
> >
> >Who came up with this plan, David, Rube Goldberg or Bud Abbot?
>
>
> Whoever controls the investigation, controls the evidence. Such a simple
> concept that you can't avoid, Coward.
Nobody could possibly controll all the variables in such an
undertaking as you kooks assert. A simple concept you don`t address.
Todd W. Vaughan
>There was a professional cameraman, with a camera loaded with film
>turning the corner right when shots were being fired from the TSBD. He
>even saw the rifle. Unless conspirators could know exactly where he
>would be and exactly what he would film, they would be vulnerable to
>film evidence. If this cameraman, (forget his name, it`s been a whole
>week since I looked at this) would have filmed the SN, all the work
>faking and planting evidence against Oz would be for naught.
Good point, Bud. You're probably refering to either Malcom O. Couch of
Robert H. Jackson.
In fact there were three cars in the motorcade filled with professional
cameramen. At the time of the first shot they were ALL approaching the
TSBD on Houston Street.