On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 6:49:12 PM UTC-6,
borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
>
> You're an absolute liar. And since you bring up Wecht specifically...
>
Oh really folks? Let's see about the claims from my lad "Boris" that I lied! Here is what the Rockefeller Commission stated he told them. All emphasis mine:
Dr. Wecht testified that the *available* evidence *all* points to the President being struck only by *two bullets* coming from his *rear*, and that **no support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car**.
In a 1974 article written by Dr. Wecht and an associate, an article which was made an exhibit in his testimony, Dr. Wecht stated that “if any other bullet struck the President’s head, whether before, after, or simultaneously with the known shot, there is *no evidence for it* in the *available* autopsy materials.”
And what did I say Wecht agreed to that made "Boris" accuse me of being a liar like him and beb?:
"All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion."
Moreover, Lurkers, since Wecht tried to weasel his way out of the weight of his own words, here is an essay that is quite fair, and indicates there is no reason to believe the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented him, especially since they included his observations and question that went contrary to the accepted autopsy findings:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.htm
And just as an added bonus, Bugliosi confronted him with these very words in the 1986 Mock Trail, where, under oath, Wecht had to agree he said it, but point out that he placed emphasis (just as I did above) on the word "available".
Now if you were "Boris" were an honorable person, he would apologize for calling me a liar. But since he trucks with the likes of beb and Lane, I think we can count on him ignoring his gross error.
> Dr. WECHT. The physical relationship of the two men clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of the trajectory attributed to Commission exhibit 399, specifically the horizontal and vertical angles with which it would have had to have struck the President and Governor Connally. Absolutely impossible.
> [....]
> Dr. WECHT. That is very easy, sir, in this case. The fact, the pattern that you set forth, would indeed be extremely applicable, for instance, to the head wound. What about the President, did he move backward, how could he have moved backward, should he have moved forward, and so on? That is indeed something that I have always said I can't be sure of, whether it is opisthotonos, a neuromuscular reaction or whatever. But given the wound, Mr. Dodd, in the President's back, and knowing its trajectory, and knowing that it did not strike bone, and knowing it was moving slightly upward, then it doesn't make any difference, sir, what we may postulate about Mr. Kennedy's or Mr. Connally's movements. We know in looking at the pictures and from their eye witness testimony, and from all of the bystanders and everybody, we know that there is just no way in the world that----
> Mr. DODD. Did I understand your statement, it doesn't 'make any difference?
> Dr. WECHT. No sir, not in this case. Not in this case because we have the bullet moving upward through President Kennedy and then moving downward at a 25 degree angle of declination. There is just no way in the world that the bullet could have done that. I have never heard of an explanation from my colleagues, they just come back to the plausibility and argument---
> Mr. DODD. You misunderstood me. I was using your testimony that those various frames and body movements were part of the evidence to indicate that it would be impossible for a single bullet to pass through both individuals.
> Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired but the witness can finish his answer.
> Dr. WECHT. Thank you, Mr. Dodd. I apologize for not understanding your question. I agree with what you just said, and that is evidence that clearly demonstrates to me that it was impossible for 399 to have done what is attributed to it under the single bullet theory.
>
>
> I have to believe you knew about this testimony going in, because you can't explicitly say the trajectory is provable, which is why you keep repeating over and over that strawman about transit (note the 25 degree angle of declination comment).
>
> Anyone else you'd care to lie about?
>
A question better fielded by "Boris", as I have just shown.
>
> > >
> >
> > IOW, "Boris" has states something he cannot cite for about Frazier, and hoped no one will notice Lurkers. :-)
>
> Maybe you can't read? The testimony is right there.
>
And I have never seen where it says what "Boris" claims it said. But I might have missed something. If so my lad "Boris" needs to cite where or shut up.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's so non-computable he has to ask again.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
> > >
> > > If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would likewise resemble as described.
> > >
> >
> > But "Boris" fails to follow what Frazier even said. He is only able to cover his portion of the testimony. He never denies that there was any blood or tissue on the bullet at some point, he merely states that it didn't show anything more than *slight* residue of blood or some other material adhering when he first received it.
>
> Apparently I have to say it again? If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would not be unthinkable to have "slight residue" on it from that. It is not reflective of the condition of a bullet fired through two people. Why do you think Eisenberg had to ask twice? He liked the sound of his voice?
>
Then why did he not follow up folks, as I said above. Clearly he didn't think it as inevitable or significant as "Boris" wants it to be and for him to think.
> And out of curiosity, why do you hold the ballistic test into that piece of wood so much more dear than the ballistic tests run by the Warren Commission via Edgewood, ALL OF WHICH failed to produce a healthy-looking bullet? Ten human cadaver wrists and a goat rib. And for those efforts, Dolce doesn't get called to testify, and the Edgewood arsenal report buried barring threat of lawsuit? And you are forced to whine about a block of wood.
>
Because the tests by the WC---which Commission I supposedly never criticize---were ill designed to prove the point. Firing directly into a cadaver bone nose first and not tumbling is going to produce far more damage to the bullet than what would have been expected based on the path proposed for CE399.
That bullet per the SBT would have first passed through several layers of tissue, side swiped a rib and shattered it (thus flattening as CE399 clearly is) and since it was tumbling when it left Connally's chest (as experimentation shows it almost surely had been since it left Kennedy's neck) appears to have struck his wrist rear first (thus extruding some lead) and at a significantly *reduced* rate of speed. Clearly quite different vs. going in nose first straight into a solid bone as done in the Edgewood experiments.
But there is an even greater mystery for "Boris" and others who believe in the WC was a sham to consider. Why in the world, would a group just playing around and determined to deviously frame a Patsy at any cost *ever* document and photograph for the evidence record the "proof" that their thesis was hogwash? In fact, CT's have spent the last 55 years mostly slobbering over errors real and perceived that they wouldn't even *know* about if the WC had simply documented only what appeared to support their cause!
>
> > > >
> > > > Not so. Nothing in the demo. did anything to disprove the SBT. It only proved that if you hit close, but a bit off, your trajectory won't be exactly the same, and you might hit two hard bones earlier in flight rather than one. Once that happens, the exit *must* vary from the SBT alignment, both, because of the missed target, and because the added resistance will surely affect the trajectory of exit.
> > >
> > > And it will NEVER vary the way Specter described, because it geometrically cannot. It did not vary by an inch or two in the demonstration, it varied by half the length of the torso. Quite an embarrassing demonstration, to anyone capable of experiencing shame.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't know or care what "Boris'" babblings about Specter and alleged geometric impossibilities. *I* do know and care that any *think* person could watch the video I link below and see that the laser light trails just fine from the back of the Kennedy stand in to the back of the Connally stand in.
>
> You can call it "babbling," "alleging," and use whatever strawman you like. No amount of whining and repeating the lie is going to show that laser, or MythBusters red line, or any other laser or line, transiting from the third thoratic vertebrae INTO his neck. That tra-jec-tor-y is not possible. Wecht echoed this, and I quoted him here. And I certainly trust those to-scale tests over Specter holding his baton.
>
"Boris" will never demonstrate this supposed impossibility Lurkers. Nor will he ever convince you to ignore your eyes vs. the video demonstration I linked to that demonstrated it is a simple question of distance, alignment, and the body posture of the men in the limo. The autopsy evidence is clear that the path of injury tracks from the back to the neck, bruising, but not puncturing the right lung. (An impossibility if the entry were as low as many CT's are constantly trying to convince themselves it was.) And since the only contact with a bone was---at most---a glancing contact with the outside of on of JFK's neck vertebrae, as a WCC FMJ bullet, it *had* to come out of his neck and continue on to hit the limo seat, the floorboard, or Connally. (And just "guess" where the only bullet or bullet hole was found folks?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.
>
> I still love this transaction. Moving the Goalposts 101. Pure desperation, borne of dishonesty right from the beginning.
>
Assessments from dishonest persons like "Boris" who partner with beb and admire the work of Mark Lane mean little Lurkers. I have already demonstrated *my* honesty in this very response. You can be the character judges.
>
> >
> > The position has already been defended in what I have said folks. Just because none of "Boris'" personalities is smart enough to perceive how is not my problem, nor would I bet is it yours.
>
> Repeating the lie over and over won't convince anyone, Herr Goebbels.
>
Heil Idiot! The 911 Troofer has spoken?
>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You see Lurkers how "Boris" just embraced the very criticism of the trajectory, his last babbling suggest I was wrong to be talking about?
>
> While it's true, I fully embrace when you're stupid enough to **admit you're completely wrong** without realizing it...the fact is...you need to REALIZE you're doing it, or else it doesn't count as honesty.
>
But repeating and doubling down on your nonsense as "Boris" continues to do *does* count as *stupidity* folks. :-)
>
> > >
> > > If the test does not show trajectory correctly, then the test FAILED. That is the whole essence of the firing test! Any master sniper with an adequate and operable weapon can hit a target from 200 feet, and any bullet can transit two aligned bodies.
> > >
> >
> > See how "Boris" doubled down on his admission that I was right that he was attempting to criticize the trajectory, even as he disingenuously (or cluelessly) attempted to say I had been barking up the wrong tree to address it. And I am supposed to reason with this lunacy?
>
> What is it you're criticizing specifically, versus what you're defending? Because here, you're saying the trajectory works....
>
> > > > >
As "Boris" demonstrates that he doesn't grasp the difference between an *on target* shot and one that clearly missed it's mark. I am sure your brain cells are still functioning and can easily grasp that I am saying the *actual* trajectory of a FMJ bullet from the 6th floor window, fired when it was, and with the men in the position they were in, works.
But an attempt to duplicate it, that missed the target which represented Oswald's strike, can only validate the missiles ability to perform the penetrations proposed for Oswald's shot and to follow a *similar* track up to the point it encountered a different anatomical structure. (I.e. 2 ribs vs. 1.) That much the experiment showed, but it did not, and could not, show the *true* trajectory which (ignoring some other variables like the differences in atmospheric conditions and the models vs. the real human beings involved) could only have been achieved by an *on target* strike.
> > > >
> > > > Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments.
> > >
> >
> > As "Boris" continues to spout off utter nonsense about the trajectory that *clearly* works.
>
> You don't even know your own position.
>
Need I link back to the clear evidence of "Boris'" MPD disorder folks? :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > All this video proves is what I've been espousing is the issue with the MythBusters test: that the bullet will do exactly what it did there, and travel not UP to the neck, but DOWN into the sternum area. That's what happens when a bullet is fired from an INCLINE. It was proved in MythBusters, and now you've been stupid enough to prove it again!
> > >
> >
> > It proves no such thing folks. But I am sure that at least *you* can understand that. :-)
>
> MythBusters was even foolish enough to draw a line. Here's the line...
>
>
https://youtu.be/PZRUNYZY71g?t=156
>
> Feel free to use that to "prove" the bullet exited JFK's neck.
>
Lurker I don't give a *rip* what they did or didn't claim. Pure and simple, they missed the target narrowly, but just enough that the trajectory simply was not quite the same. The only way for the test to have properly validated that, was what I stated above.
> >
> > > And I can't imagine why you only wanted me to watch up to 36:19. Is it so I would miss this...
> > >
> > >
https://youtu.be/oyECKcK0uCw?t=2260
> > >
> > > I wonder, what do you think he's pointing to on the back of his neck?
> > >
> >
> > I wonder what his isolated non-explained picture has to do with anything meaningful Lurkers?
>
> Not my fault if your OWN CITATION fails to explain what it's showing in its production. I think it's more likely he was pointing to the spot where the bullet would ACTUALLY had to have entered from 60 feet up, to come out the front of the neck. Or he was pointing to a pimple, right?
LOL! "Boris" will never carry his burden of proof about this 60 feet up nonsense he continues to spout. But of course he did snip the rest of my post, just to "prove" he didn't have to latch on to the unexplained photo in the CE903 documentation like he would have otherwise been *dying* to do had I not said this:
"The 3rd picture at this link shows something just as unexplained and out-of-context that "Boris" will doubtlessly want to jump onto with beanie blades in full whir, in order to try to prove that CE903 is somehow invalidated by it."
And of course he snipped where I restored the earlier post he was embarrassed about. Here is everything he just snipped again:
"The illustration that the trajectory in fact *was* possible was very clear from the video. Let Boris prove what this out-of-context picture proves about anything. Just more silliness where anything they do not understand the purpose of becomes "proof" that what they *do* ---or at least *should*---understand is meaningless.
Here is a good example of that. The 3rd picture at this link shows something just as unexplained and out-of-context that "Boris" will doubtlessly want to jump onto with beanie blades in full whir, in order to try to prove that CE903 is somehow invalidated by it. Of course, the meaning and intent of this particular picture is unclear, though any thinking individual should easily see that the inclusion of it in the documentary record makes *zero* sense if the WC was trying to cover up for the (visually non-evident) "deception" of CE903:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html
>
> >
> >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw
> >
> > Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.
>
>
> You were so fascinated and thrilled that they could prove a bullet could transit two bodies, that you completely missed the obvious. Any more tests showing the EXACT SAME THING you'd like to show us, buffoon?
I have plenty of tests showing what *I* am asserting. Very few illustrating "Boris'" delusions about what I am asserting, or that support his strained interpretations of things. :-)
Ooops! "Boris snipped one of his more embarrassing moments. (I know that is a very difficult thing to isolate folks.) Here is the part of the prior post he apparently isn't to proud of: