Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #19

[Ben Holmes]

I've noted before that when believers don't have facts, they tend to
get long-winded. Here we see one of David's more long-winded post.


> 19.) While viewing the Zapruder Film, I cannot see how anybody can say
> that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of
> the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
> film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
> JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting.
>
> The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious
> that it's the FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by
> the swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the
> actions of an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the
> front?
>
> In addition (and probably more importantly), the Zapruder Film, when
> viewed in super-slow-motion -- LIKE THIS CLIP -- verifies beyond
> question that President Kennedy's head moves FORWARD (not backward) at
> the critical MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating that the fatal bullet that
> hit his head came from BEHIND him and not from the front or
> right-front of JFK's limousine.
>
> Also -- If JFK had been shot from the infamous "Grassy Knoll" (which
> was located to the right-front of Kennedy's car at the time he was
> shot), why wasn't there any damage to the LEFT side of President
> Kennedy's head? Instead, the left side of his head remained completely
> intact and undamaged, as can easily be seen in this autopsy photograph
> HERE.

As seems usual, once again David has put forth "evidence" that doesn't
even support Oswald' guilt, let alone his "sole" guilt. Over and over
again he's done this, and not a *SINGLE* believer will publicly
acknowledge this fact.

Now, a refutation in detail:

> 19.) While viewing the Zapruder Film, I cannot see how anybody can say
> that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of
> the head shot.

And your expertise is what... exactly?

It certainly can't be expertise that's worth anything, because *YOU*
believe that his back and to the left movement is causes by a shot
coming from behind.

So all you're doing is offering your *WORTHLESS* opinion that is based
on nothing other than your faith.

Other people have no problems using the extant Z-film to pinpoint a
large back of the head wound. That *YOU* can't see it means next to
nothing at all. The things you "can't see" in this case are legion.


> It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
> film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
> JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting.

Then you're simply blind... as it's quite clear in several frames that
the back of JFK's head is missing. Z-337 has been noted by many
critics as one of the clearer frames showing the damage reported by
dozens of witnesses - AND the autopsy report.

It's amusing that believers keep pretending to believe the autopsy
report, even when it **CLEARLY** places the large head wound on the
*BACK* of JFK's head.


> The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious
> that it's the FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by
> the swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the
> actions of an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the
> front?

Nope and nope.

Interestingly, David follows all other believers in his absolute
SILENCE on the trail of bullet fragments in the X-ray... and the
direction it clearly shows the bullet traveling.

David's a coward.


> In addition (and probably more importantly), the Zapruder Film, when
> viewed in super-slow-motion -- LIKE THIS CLIP -- verifies beyond
> question that President Kennedy's head moves FORWARD (not backward) at
> the critical MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating that the fatal bullet that
> hit his head came from BEHIND him and not from the front or
> right-front of JFK's limousine.

Nope.

You focus on a split second, and one that's blurry at that, completely
disregard the fact that *ALL* people in the limo moved forward, and
simply deny the much larger and longer (in both distance and time)
movement back and to the left.

You can't explain it... so you simply ignore it.

Amusingly, you can't figure out why this forward movement *IS NOT
SEEN* in the extant film by the casual viewer, yet witnesses in Dealey
Plaza noted it.


> Also -- If JFK had been shot from the infamous "Grassy Knoll" (which
> was located to the right-front of Kennedy's car at the time he was
> shot), why wasn't there any damage to the LEFT side of President
> Kennedy's head?

Because Dr. Clark was right. A tangential strike need offer no damage
at all to the left side of JFK's head.

And no matter how many times we point this out, you just repeat the
same nonsense a year or two later.


> Instead, the left side of his head remained completely
> intact and undamaged, as can easily be seen in this autopsy photograph
> HERE.

No need to look - you're implying that critics would argue damage on
the left side of JFK. That's silly.

Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
guilt."

And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
this.

[Bud]

The irony and hypocrisy are rich here, lurkers. First off Ben thinks the personnel at Parkland can determine a bullet entrance from a bullet exit, something they have no expertise in. But worse than that in the other thread Ben implies he has the expertise to determine the precise instant Connally was struck by a bullet. Now Ben claims it requires expertise to note that the back of Kennedy`s head shows no sign of being blown out in the Zapruder film. Can somebody make a real case that Ben is *not* a retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men? I don`t think such a case can be made.

> It certainly can't be expertise that's worth anything, because *YOU*
> believe that his back and to the left movement is causes by a shot
> coming from behind.

It can`t be the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back of the head that causes this movement as that bullet was long gone before Kennedy starts a backward motion, lurkers.

> So all you're doing is offering your *WORTHLESS* opinion that is based
> on nothing other than your faith.

Ben hates that other people can reason like adults and not play the childish games he does, lurkers.

> Other people have no problems using the extant Z-film to pinpoint a
> large back of the head wound. That *YOU* can't see it means next to
> nothing at all. The things you "can't see" in this case are legion.

Notice Ben attributes this unsupported argument to "other people", lurkers.

>
> > It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
> > film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
> > JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting.
>
> Then you're simply blind... as it's quite clear in several frames that
> the back of JFK's head is missing. Z-337 has been noted by many
> critics as one of the clearer frames showing the damage reported by
> dozens of witnesses - AND the autopsy report.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000010.htm

> It's amusing that believers keep pretending to believe the autopsy
> report, even when it **CLEARLY** places the large head wound on the
> *BACK* of JFK's head.

The back of Kennedy`s head is largely undamaged in the z-film, as this article shows...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000010.htm

>
> > The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious
> > that it's the FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by
> > the swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the
> > actions of an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the
> > front?
>
> Nope and nope.
>
> Interestingly, David follows all other believers in his absolute
> SILENCE on the trail of bullet fragments in the X-ray... and the
> direction it clearly shows the bullet traveling.

Empty claims, lurkers. When Ben really needs an expert`s opinion he relies on his own meaningless assertions.

> David's a coward.
>
>
> > In addition (and probably more importantly), the Zapruder Film, when
> > viewed in super-slow-motion -- LIKE THIS CLIP -- verifies beyond
> > question that President Kennedy's head moves FORWARD (not backward) at
> > the critical MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating that the fatal bullet that
> > hit his head came from BEHIND him and not from the front or
> > right-front of JFK's limousine.
>
> Nope.
>
> You focus on a split second,

He focuses on where Kennedy is clearly struck by a bullet, lurkers. The retards want to focus everywhere but the most relevant frame.

>and one that's blurry at that, completely
> disregard the fact that *ALL* people in the limo moved forward,

Ben is lying, Jackie is not going forward when Kennedy is struck.

And it is irrelevant anyway, because Kennedy is the person who was struck by a bullet at that instant, lurkers. And when his head was struck by a bullet his head went forward.

> and
> simply deny the much larger and longer (in both distance and time)
> movement back and to the left.

Bullets just don`t throw people violently back like that, lurkers. They just don`t, it is against the laws of physics. The amount of force Kennedy had exerted on his body was nearly exactly the force exerted on Oswald when he took the shot. A force that could throw a person of Kennedy weight violently in any direction would likewise throw Oswald`s scrawny ass across the room, and he would have only gotten the first shot off. This doesn`t happen, there was just enough force exerted by Oswald`s bullet to nudge Kennedy head forward a small amount. Look at this video of people shooting bowling balls (which are about 9 pounds, about the same as a human head)...

https://youtu.be/b_L46reGiq0

There is hardly enough energy to get the bowling balls rolling, how can they bodily throw a whole human body? If you`ve ever fired a rifle, the push you felt on your shoulder is about the same as the force exerted on the target.

> You can't explain it... so you simply ignore it.

We know it can`t be caused by a bullet violently throwing him back, lurkers. Why do the retards ignore the most important fact? The answer is that they have no interest in the truth and are merely playing silly games with Kennedy`s death.

> Amusingly, you can't figure out why this forward movement *IS NOT
> SEEN* in the extant film by the casual viewer, yet witnesses in Dealey
> Plaza noted it.

You would have to take into consideration where the witness was viewing the shooting from, lurkers. It may have looked more pronounced from other vantages, like the other side.

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

> > Also -- If JFK had been shot from the infamous "Grassy Knoll" (which
> > was located to the right-front of Kennedy's car at the time he was
> > shot), why wasn't there any damage to the LEFT side of President
> > Kennedy's head?
>
> Because Dr. Clark was right. A tangential strike need offer no damage
> at all to the left side of JFK's head.
>
> And no matter how many times we point this out, you just repeat the
> same nonsense a year or two later.

Actually what Ben is spouting is nonsense. How does a tangential strike from the grassy knoll slice off the front of Kennedy`s head and not hit Jackie?

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

It just doesn`t work, and shows the absurd lengths the retards are willing to go to contest reality.

> > Instead, the left side of his head remained completely
> > intact and undamaged, as can easily be seen in this autopsy photograph
> > HERE.
>
> No need to look - you're implying that critics would argue damage on
> the left side of JFK. That's silly.
>
> Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
> guilt."
>
> And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
> this.

Ben is too stupid to understand the concept, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The irony and hypocrisy are rich here, lurkers. First off Ben thinks the personnel at Parkland can determine a bullet entrance from a bullet exit, something they have no expertise in.

Tell us, Dr. Troll, exactly what each of the Parkland doctors' area of expertise was, and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?

> But worse than that in the other thread Ben implies he has the expertise to determine the precise instant Connally was struck by a bullet. Now Ben claims it requires expertise to note that the back of Kennedy`s head shows no sign of being blown out in the Zapruder film.

That only requires faith on your part. Damage to the occipital is pretty common knowledge at this point. Even your lord and savior David Von Pissant is forced to admit it on his own website:

"I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63"

Or will the troll now tell us large gaping wounds are yet another thing Parkland personnel have no area of expertise in? LOL!!

> Ben hates that other people can reason like adults and not play the childish games he does, lurkers.

This complaint is coming from someone that calls everyone with opposing viewpoints "retards." It's actually astounding, your lack of introspection.

> > > In addition (and probably more importantly), the Zapruder Film, when
> > > viewed in super-slow-motion -- LIKE THIS CLIP -- verifies beyond
> > > question that President Kennedy's head moves FORWARD (not backward) at
> > > the critical MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating that the fatal bullet that
> > > hit his head came from BEHIND him and not from the front or
> > > right-front of JFK's limousine.

Careful what you say next, troll...believers have already invented some nonsense called "jet effect" in an attempt to explain away why JFK is thrown backwards by a bullet from behind. Now saying his head moves forward contradicts your own LN nonsense. Bud would like to have his cock and eat it too.

> Bullets just don`t throw people violently back like that, lurkers. They just don`t, it is against the laws of physics.

Bud is now an expert physicist. Isn't that something?

> There is hardly enough energy to get the bowling balls rolling, how can they bodily throw a whole human body? If you`ve ever fired a rifle, the push you felt on your shoulder is about the same as the force exerted on the target.

Bud is now an expert in firearms.

> We know it can`t be caused by a bullet violently throwing him back, lurkers.

Bud is now an expert in ballistics.

> Why do the retards ignore the most important fact? The answer is that they have no interest in the truth and are merely playing silly games with Kennedy`s death.

Bud is now an expert in mind-reading.

> > Amusingly, you can't figure out why this forward movement *IS NOT
> > SEEN* in the extant film by the casual viewer, yet witnesses in Dealey
> > Plaza noted it.
>
> You would have to take into consideration where the witness was viewing the shooting from, lurkers. It may have looked more pronounced from other vantages, like the other side.

Bud now knows better than every witness in Dealey Plaza, who are ALL wrong and/or mistaken and/or crackpots and/or fame whores and/or not standing in the right spot anyway. This is a sad way for a "researcher" like Bud to live.

> > Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
> > guilt."
> >
> > And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
> > this.
>
> Ben is too stupid to understand the concept, lurkers.

EXCELLENT refutation, "Bud". Try it in a court of law, see how far you get.

[Bud]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 7:38:07 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The irony and hypocrisy are rich here, lurkers. First off Ben thinks the personnel at Parkland can determine a bullet entrance from a bullet exit, something they have no expertise in.
>
> Tell us, Dr. Troll, exactly what each of the Parkland doctors' area of expertise was,

Medicine.

> and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?

Wound ballistic experts and forensic scientists.

> > But worse than that in the other thread Ben implies he has the expertise to determine the precise instant Connally was struck by a bullet. Now Ben claims it requires expertise to note that the back of Kennedy`s head shows no sign of being blown out in the Zapruder film.
>
> That only requires faith on your part. Damage to the occipital is pretty common knowledge at this point. Even your lord and savior David Von Pissant is forced to admit it on his own website:

Of course Kennedy had a wound in the occipital, that is where Oswald shot him.

>
> "I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63"
>
> Or will the troll now tell us large gaping wounds are yet another thing Parkland personnel have no area of expertise in? LOL!!

Whats your point?

>
>
>
>
> > Ben hates that other people can reason like adults and not play the childish games he does, lurkers.
>
> This complaint is coming from someone that calls everyone with opposing viewpoints "retards." It's actually astounding, your lack of introspection.

I know exactly what I`m doing. You might not understand, but I do. Ben ramped up the rhetoric in this place. He insists on calling people liars and cowards. If he thinks it his his domain to make these determinations then why shouldn`t I call them the way I see them?

But aside from the rhetoric, Ben and the other conspiracy retards like yourself are playing silly games with the deaths of these men, and this is what I`ve been showing.

> > > > In addition (and probably more importantly), the Zapruder Film, when
> > > > viewed in super-slow-motion -- LIKE THIS CLIP -- verifies beyond
> > > > question that President Kennedy's head moves FORWARD (not backward) at
> > > > the critical MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating that the fatal bullet that
> > > > hit his head came from BEHIND him and not from the front or
> > > > right-front of JFK's limousine.
>
> Careful what you say next, troll...believers have already invented some nonsense called "jet effect" in an attempt to explain away why JFK is thrown backwards by a bullet from behind. Now saying his head moves forward contradicts your own LN nonsense. Bud would like to have his cock and eat it too.

What you are responding to are not my words or my argument, idiot.

The "back and to the left" is the wrong thing to focus on, which is why the retards insist on focusing on it. Not one of you retards can shows how that motion gives insight into what occurred.

>
> > Bullets just don`t throw people violently back like that, lurkers. They just don`t, it is against the laws of physics.
>
> Bud is now an expert physicist. Isn't that something?

Watch. Learn.

https://youtu.be/WPGNtFU0ww0

> > There is hardly enough energy to get the bowling balls rolling, how can they bodily throw a whole human body? If you`ve ever fired a rifle, the push you felt on your shoulder is about the same as the force exerted on the target.
>
> Bud is now an expert in firearms.

Sometimes you need visual aids with idiots...

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/physics-20law-130831054106-phpapp02/95/newtons-laws-of-motion-physics-26-638.jpg?cb=1377927981

> > We know it can`t be caused by a bullet violently throwing him back, lurkers.
>
> Bud is now an expert in ballistics.

Bud has enough understanding of physics to know that the force of a bullet hitting Kennedy cannot be the cause of the violent back and to the left motion exhibited by Kennedy. If more people understood this there would be less people who believe in conspiracy.

And don`t think I don`t realize that the purpose of these phony responses is to avoid addressing the points I am making.

> > Why do the retards ignore the most important fact? The answer is that they have no interest in the truth and are merely playing silly games with Kennedy`s death.
>
> Bud is now an expert in mind-reading.

Observing.

> > > Amusingly, you can't figure out why this forward movement *IS NOT
> > > SEEN* in the extant film by the casual viewer, yet witnesses in Dealey
> > > Plaza noted it.
> >
> > You would have to take into consideration where the witness was viewing the shooting from, lurkers. It may have looked more pronounced from other vantages, like the other side.
>
> Bud now knows better than every witness in Dealey Plaza,

I have better information.

> who are ALL wrong and/or mistaken and/or crackpots and/or fame whores and/or not standing in the right spot anyway. This is a sad way for a "researcher" like Bud to live.

Information needs to be looked at in the correct context. It was a sudden, surprise attack lasting seconds, that is the correct context. Looking at the information in the correct context is harmful to the silly hobby you indulge in so you refuse to do it.

> > > Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
> > > guilt."
> > >
> > > And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
> > > this.
> >
> > Ben is too stupid to understand the concept, lurkers.
>
> EXCELLENT refutation, "Bud". Try it in a court of law, see how far you get.

DVP explained the concept to Ben. Ben was too stupid to understand it. No need to go to trial over it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > Tell us, Dr. Troll, exactly what each of the Parkland doctors' area of expertise was,
>
> Medicine.

Apparently you asked each one of them what their expertise is, and they all told you "medicine" and nothing else. Well, I guess making broad-stroke assumptions about people's areas of expertise is a much better approach than citing their experience from firsthand sources....

Mr. SPECTER - What experience have you had, if any, with gunshot wounds?
Dr. CARRICO - In the emergency room at Parkland, during my residence school and internship and residency, we have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you approximate the number of gunshot wounds you have treated in the course of those duties?
Dr. CARRICO - In all probably 150, 200, something in that range.

***

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, in connection with your duties at Parkland Hospital, or before, have you had any experience with gunshot wounds?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where in your background did you acquire that experience?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely during residency training and subsequent to that in my capacity here on the staff.
Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of that type patient almost daily.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you approximate for me the total number of gunshot wounds which you have had an opportunity to observe?
Dr. McCLELLAND - I would estimate that it would be in excess of 200

Such astounding ignorance, to think someone with medical expertise would be incapable of deconstructing a wound!

>
> > and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?
>
> Wound ballistic experts and forensic scientists.

Like Cyril Wecht.

And unlike Arlen Specter.

> > That only requires faith on your part. Damage to the occipital is pretty common knowledge at this point. Even your lord and savior David Von Pissant is forced to admit it on his own website:
>
> Of course Kennedy had a wound in the occipital, that is where Oswald shot him.

The troll is clearly unfamiliar with this image:

https://goo.gl/images/oHPjzX

Or these testimonials:

CRENSHAW: The wound was the size of a baseball.

CARRICO: There was a large - quite a large - defect about here on his skull.

RIKE: You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole at the back of his head.

O'CONNOR: [There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain.

NURSE AUDREY BELL: There was a massive wound at the back of his head.

McCLELLAND: It was in the right back part of the head - very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table as we were donig the tracheotomy.

Or this image...

https://goo.gl/images/NsZgWA

The troll probably doesn't even know what Harper's Fragment is.

> >
> > "I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63"
> >
> > Or will the troll now tell us large gaping wounds are yet another thing Parkland personnel have no area of expertise in? LOL!!
>
> Whats your point?

Enough said.

> > > Ben hates that other people can reason like adults and not play the childish games he does, lurkers.
> >
> > This complaint is coming from someone that calls everyone with opposing viewpoints "retards." It's actually astounding, your lack of introspection.
>
> I know exactly what I`m doing. You might not understand, but I do. Ben ramped up the rhetoric in this place. He insists on calling people liars and cowards. If he thinks it his his domain to make these determinations then why shouldn`t I call them the way I see them?

Ben does not *call* people liars and cowards. He DEMONSTRATES it beyond a doubt, with evidence, and then labels accordingly. Whereas you merely are trying to be spiteful, and defend your faith with crude epithets you cannot cite for.

> > Careful what you say next, troll...believers have already invented some nonsense called "jet effect" in an attempt to explain away why JFK is thrown backwards by a bullet from behind. Now saying his head moves forward contradicts your own LN nonsense. Bud would like to have his cock and eat it too.
>
> What you are responding to are not my words or my argument, idiot.

Really? So you are prepared to admit your fellow believers are wrong? Or are you arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they're arguing, and presuming you are both correct?

> The "back and to the left" is the wrong thing to focus on, which is why the retards insist on focusing on it. Not one of you retards can shows how that motion gives insight into what occurred.

If it is the wrong thing to focus on, LNers would have no need to discredit it with some invented pseudo-science.

> > Bud is now an expert physicist. Isn't that something?
>
> Watch. Learn.
>
> https://youtu.be/WPGNtFU0ww0

My mistake, Bud is a certified expert from watching a 5-minute clip of MythBusters. LOL! Such an armchair researcher.

> > > There is hardly enough energy to get the bowling balls rolling, how can they bodily throw a whole human body? If you`ve ever fired a rifle, the push you felt on your shoulder is about the same as the force exerted on the target.
> >
> > Bud is now an expert in firearms.
>
> Sometimes you need visual aids with idiots...

Indeed, such as the previous visual aid showing bullet trajectory from all points in DP, previously provided by Ben. Which I'm sure you ignored, before calling it retarded.

> > Bud is now an expert in ballistics.
>
> Bud has enough understanding of physics to know that the force of a bullet hitting Kennedy cannot be the cause of the violent back and to the left motion exhibited by Kennedy. If more people understood this there would be less people who believe in conspiracy.

Yet Bud can't explain the physics. He simply uses a big word like "physics" and hopes I will assume he understands it.

> And don`t think I don`t realize that the purpose of these phony responses is to avoid addressing the points I am making.

Bluff, bluster and empty claims, lurkers. Bud needs to learn that I will spank him when i get around to it and not before.

> > > Why do the retards ignore the most important fact?

I don't know. But you do.

> > > You would have to take into consideration where the witness was viewing the shooting from, lurkers. It may have looked more pronounced from other vantages, like the other side.
> >
> > Bud now knows better than every witness in Dealey Plaza,
>
> I have better information.

LOL!!! Such ASTOUNDING arrogance.

> > who are ALL wrong and/or mistaken and/or crackpots and/or fame whores and/or not standing in the right spot anyway. This is a sad way for a "researcher" like Bud to live.

> Information needs to be looked at in the correct context. It was a sudden, surprise attack lasting seconds, that is the correct context. Looking at the information in the correct context is harmful to the silly hobby you indulge in so you refuse to do it.

The correct context is all the witness corroboration you are forced to ignore.

> > > > Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
> > > > guilt."
> > > >
> > > > And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
> > > > this.
> > >

> DVP explained the concept to Ben. Ben was too stupid to understand it. No need to go to trial over it.

You don't understand what "sole guilt" means. And this makes everyone else around you stupid? That's LN logic, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 9:19:52 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Tell us, Dr. Troll, exactly what each of the Parkland doctors' area of expertise was,
> >
> > Medicine.
>
> Apparently you asked each one of them what their expertise is, and they all told you "medicine" and nothing else.

Its what they teach in medical school.

> Well, I guess making broad-stroke assumptions about people's areas of expertise is a much better approach than citing their experience from firsthand sources....
>
> Mr. SPECTER - What experience have you had, if any, with gunshot wounds?
> Dr. CARRICO - In the emergency room at Parkland, during my residence school and internship and residency, we have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds.
> Mr. SPECTER - Could you approximate the number of gunshot wounds you have treated in the course of those duties?
> Dr. CARRICO - In all probably 150, 200, something in that range.
>
> ***

Is Carrico claiming any kind of expertise in determining gunshot entrances and exits?

> Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, in connection with your duties at Parkland Hospital, or before, have you had any experience with gunshot wounds?
> Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
> Mr. SPECTER - Where in your background did you acquire that experience?
> Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely during residency training and subsequent to that in my capacity here on the staff.
> Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
> Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of that type patient almost daily.
> Mr. SPECTER - Could you approximate for me the total number of gunshot wounds which you have had an opportunity to observe?
> Dr. McCLELLAND - I would estimate that it would be in excess of 200

Is McClelland claiming some kind of expertise in determining bullet entrance from exits. What you are offering has no bearing on the point of contention.

And you missed this one...

Senator COOPER - I would just ask this question. In your long experience
of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have you
acquired, through that. knowledge of ballistics and characteristics of
bullets?

Dr. GREGORY - Within a very limited sphere.

He realizes that just seeing a great deal of bullet holes doesn`t convey a great deal of knowledge of wound ballistics.

And Dr Shaw had this to say...

Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics
is just that of an average layman, no more.

He also realizes that wound ballistics is a completely different field than his.

> Such astounding ignorance, to think someone with medical expertise would be incapable of deconstructing a wound!

Did either of the two witnesses you produced say they had the expertise to determine bullet entrance from exits?

I`ve seen lots of airplanes, probably thousands. That doesn`t make me an expert on airplanes.

> >
> > > and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?
> >
> > Wound ballistic experts and forensic scientists.
>
> Like Cyril Wecht.

I don`t know hat his credentials are. Was he at Parkland when Kennedy was brought in?

>
> And unlike Arlen Specter.

Why don`t you name more people who weren`t there?

> > > That only requires faith on your part. Damage to the occipital is pretty common knowledge at this point. Even your lord and savior David Von Pissant is forced to admit it on his own website:
> >
> > Of course Kennedy had a wound in the occipital, that is where Oswald shot him.
>
> The troll is clearly unfamiliar with this image:
>
> https://goo.gl/images/oHPjzX

What about it?

> Or these testimonials:
>
> CRENSHAW: The wound was the size of a baseball.
>
> CARRICO: There was a large - quite a large - defect about here on his skull.
>
> RIKE: You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole at the back of his head.
>
> O'CONNOR: [There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain.
>
> NURSE AUDREY BELL: There was a massive wound at the back of his head.
>
> McCLELLAND: It was in the right back part of the head - very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table as we were donig the tracheotomy.
>
> Or this image...
>
> https://goo.gl/images/NsZgWA

Why do all of these idiots suffer from the same incapacity when it comes to making arguments?

> The troll probably doesn't even know what Harper's Fragment is.

I even know where it was found. Nowhere near where it would have been found if Kennedy was shot from the front.

> > >
> > > "I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63"
> > >
> > > Or will the troll now tell us large gaping wounds are yet another thing Parkland personnel have no area of expertise in? LOL!!
> >
> > Whats your point?
>
> Enough said.

Yes, I knew just the right question to ask to stop you in your tracks.

> > > > Ben hates that other people can reason like adults and not play the childish games he does, lurkers.
> > >
> > > This complaint is coming from someone that calls everyone with opposing viewpoints "retards." It's actually astounding, your lack of introspection.
> >
> > I know exactly what I`m doing. You might not understand, but I do. Ben ramped up the rhetoric in this place. He insists on calling people liars and cowards. If he thinks it his his domain to make these determinations then why shouldn`t I call them the way I see them?
>
> Ben does not *call* people liars and cowards. He DEMONSTRATES it beyond a doubt,

Just like you are demonstrating your retardation here. To my satisfaction.

> with evidence, and then labels accordingly. Whereas you merely are trying to be spiteful, and defend your faith with crude epithets you cannot cite for.

You are using the same weak argument Ben that Ben uses, that Ben`s ad hominem isn`t really ad hominem. I don`t accept that, I see this as evidence for my contention that you both have several mental incompacities crossing over into retardation.

>
>
> > > Careful what you say next, troll...believers have already invented some nonsense called "jet effect" in an attempt to explain away why JFK is thrown backwards by a bullet from behind. Now saying his head moves forward contradicts your own LN nonsense. Bud would like to have his cock and eat it too.
> >
> > What you are responding to are not my words or my argument, idiot.
>
> Really? So you are prepared to admit your fellow believers are wrong?

Are you prepared to admit you are an idiot for attributing someone elses arguments to me?

> Or are you arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they're arguing, and presuming you are both correct?
>
> > The "back and to the left" is the wrong thing to focus on, which is why the retards insist on focusing on it. Not one of you retards can shows how that motion gives insight into what occurred.
>
> If it is the wrong thing to focus on, LNers would have no need to discredit it with some invented pseudo-science.

Conspiracy retards are the ones constantly demanding that it be explained. To me it is inconsequential. Since him being bodily thrown by a bullet strike is impossible what difference does it make?

> > > Bud is now an expert physicist. Isn't that something?
> >
> > Watch. Learn.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/WPGNtFU0ww0
>
> My mistake, Bud is a certified expert from watching a 5-minute clip of MythBusters. LOL! Such an armchair researcher.

I made no mistake that I could cure you of your ignorance, I only presented you with the opportunity. But now that everyone has watched the clip and saw that the pig carcass barely moved when shot you`ve identified yourself as a person with no interest in the truth who is merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> > > > There is hardly enough energy to get the bowling balls rolling, how can they bodily throw a whole human body? If you`ve ever fired a rifle, the push you felt on your shoulder is about the same as the force exerted on the target.
> > >
> > > Bud is now an expert in firearms.
> >
> > Sometimes you need visual aids with idiots...
>
> Indeed, such as the previous visual aid showing bullet trajectory from all points in DP, previously provided by Ben. Which I'm sure you ignored, before calling it retarded.

What Ben showed is that any idiot can posit any number of shots from any number of locations if one is inclined to be an idiot.

But I notice you have a common trait found among conspiracy believes, when shown to be wrong one place, you merely flit away and land somewhere else. Like a fly, you might be hard to swat but you still eat shit.

> > > Bud is now an expert in ballistics.
> >
> > Bud has enough understanding of physics to know that the force of a bullet hitting Kennedy cannot be the cause of the violent back and to the left motion exhibited by Kennedy. If more people understood this there would be less people who believe in conspiracy.
>
> Yet Bud can't explain the physics.

Apparently I can`t dumb it down to your level.

> He simply uses a big word like "physics" and hopes I will assume he understands it.
>
> > And don`t think I don`t realize that the purpose of these phony responses is to avoid addressing the points I am making.
>
> Bluff, bluster and empty claims, lurkers. Bud needs to learn that I will spank him when i get around to it and not before.

You will never address a single point I make.

>
> > > > Why do the retards ignore the most important fact?
>
> I don't know. But you do.

Then take the challenge. Show that the "back and to the left" movement Kennedy made gives insight in determining what occurred.

>
> > > > You would have to take into consideration where the witness was viewing the shooting from, lurkers. It may have looked more pronounced from other vantages, like the other side.
> > >
> > > Bud now knows better than every witness in Dealey Plaza,
> >
> > I have better information.
>
> LOL!!! Such ASTOUNDING arrogance.

Merely a fact. Most of them never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.

> > > who are ALL wrong and/or mistaken and/or crackpots and/or fame whores and/or not standing in the right spot anyway. This is a sad way for a "researcher" like Bud to live.
>
> > Information needs to be looked at in the correct context. It was a sudden, surprise attack lasting seconds, that is the correct context. Looking at the information in the correct context is harmful to the silly hobby you indulge in so you refuse to do it.
>
> The correct context is all the witness corroboration you are forced to ignore.

Such as?

> > > > > Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
> > > > > guilt."
> > > > >
> > > > > And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
> > > > > this.
> > > >
> > DVP explained the concept to Ben. Ben was too stupid to understand it. No need to go to trial over it.
>
> You don't understand what "sole guilt" means.

I understood it when DVP explained it. That is how I am different than you and Ben.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > Apparently you asked each one of them what their expertise is, and they all told you "medicine" and nothing else.
>
> Its what they teach in medical school.

You, never having been to medical school, don't actually have any idea what is taught there, or how wounds anatomy is deconstructed, or what information can be gleaned on an operating table or a morgue. Again, it's important to point out the sheer ignorance on your part in assuming what a medical professional can ascertain and what they can't. I provided firsthand testimony. You did not. Except for this...

> Senator COOPER - I would just ask this question. In your long experience
> of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have you
> acquired, through that. knowledge of ballistics and characteristics of
> bullets?
>
> Dr. GREGORY - Within a very limited sphere.
>
> He realizes that just seeing a great deal of bullet holes doesn`t convey a great deal of knowledge of wound ballistics.

Actually "Bud" is flat-out lying here, by omitting an important piece of the testimony. Here is the part our cowardly troll conveniently left out:

Dr. GREGORY: I have been concerned with the behavior of missiles in contact with tissues, but I am not very knowledgeable about the design of a missile nor how many grains of powder there are behind it. My concern was with the dissipation of the energy which it carries and the havoc that it wreaks when it goes off.

COOPER: You derived that knowledge from your actual study of wounds and their treatment?

Dr. GREGORY: Study of wounds together with what I have read from the Army proving grounds, various centers, for exploring this kind of thing. I don't own a gun myself.

So, just in case you need it broken down for you in very small sentences... his "limited sphere of knowledge" was in reference to ballistic design. NOT bullet wounds. In fact, he makes not one, but two points of specifying that his AREA OF STUDY involves the study of wounds, and the behavior of missiles in contact with tissues.

You are a DESPERATE liar...."Bud."

>
> And Dr Shaw had this to say...
>
> Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics
> is just that of an average layman, no more.

You are lying by omission again. Doubling down on your desperation, as evident. This is what immediately precedes (that means "come before") your quote of Shaw...

COOPER: I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony you have had wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest.
What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would this experience you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by bullets--have provided you knowledge also about the characteristics of missiles, particularly bullets of this type?

And now, proceeding...

Dr. SHAW: I have seen many bullets that have passed through bodies or have penetrated bodies and have struck bone and I know manners from which they are deformed but I know very little about the caliber of bullets, the velocity of bullets, many things that other people have much more knowledge of than I have.

So the "preceding" part you omitted gives us Cooper's recognition of Dr. Shaw's "wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest." And the "proceeding" part you omitted exhibits that when Dr. Shaw said his knowledge was that of an "average layman", he was referring to bullet caliber and velocity. Nothing to do with wounds, or the medical effects thereof.

You are an utterly disingenuous liar. Twice.

> > Such astounding ignorance, to think someone with medical expertise would be incapable of deconstructing a wound!
>
> Did either of the two witnesses you produced say they had the expertise to determine bullet entrance from exits?

Define "expert," and explain how someone becomes an "expert" of something. This ought to be good...if you answer at all.

> I`ve seen lots of airplanes, probably thousands. That doesn`t make me an expert on airplanes.

I seriously doubt you know what an airplane is.

> > > > and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?
> > >
> > > Wound ballistic experts and forensic scientists.
> >
> > Like Cyril Wecht.
>
> I don`t know hat his credentials are. Was he at Parkland when Kennedy was brought in?

You know exactly what Cyril Wecht's credentials are and/or how to find them. You are so desperate now it's humiliating.

>
> >
> > And unlike Arlen Specter.
>
> Why don`t you name more people who weren`t there?

Truly you're an imbecile. Let me explain. Arlen Specter invented the SBT. Except Arlen Specter is not a ballistics expert. He is not a weapons expert. He is not an expert in mathematics. He is not an expert in physics. So for all your whining about nobody being experts in anything, you now look even stupider than I thought was possible by defending a theory put forth by a guy who had no credentials to come to the conclusions he did. See how dumb you are? Also, the SBT was a hypothesis. That means...he guessed.

> > > > That only requires faith on your part. Damage to the occipital is pretty common knowledge at this point. Even your lord and savior David Von Pissant is forced to admit it on his own website:
> > >
> > > Of course Kennedy had a wound in the occipital, that is where Oswald shot him.
> >
> > The troll is clearly unfamiliar with this image:
> >
> > https://goo.gl/images/oHPjzX
>
> What about it?
>
> > Or these testimonials:
> >
> > CRENSHAW: The wound was the size of a baseball.
> >
> > CARRICO: There was a large - quite a large - defect about here on his skull.
> >
> > RIKE: You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole at the back of his head.
> >
> > O'CONNOR: [There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain.
> >
> > NURSE AUDREY BELL: There was a massive wound at the back of his head.
> >
> > McCLELLAND: It was in the right back part of the head - very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table as we were donig the tracheotomy.
> >
> > Or this image...
> >
> > https://goo.gl/images/NsZgWA
>
> Why do all of these idiots suffer from the same incapacity when it comes to making arguments?

Calling several doctors idiots and running away does not a refutation make. I should also mention they were all present. And you weren't.

> > The troll probably doesn't even know what Harper's Fragment is.
>
> I even know where it was found. Nowhere near where it would have been found if Kennedy was shot from the front.

Idiot. Not only is that false, but where it was found doesn't even matter in the context of this argument.

> > > >
> > > > "I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63"
> > > >
> > > > Or will the troll now tell us large gaping wounds are yet another thing Parkland personnel have no area of expertise in? LOL!!
> > >
> > > Whats your point?
> >
> > Enough said.
>
> Yes, I knew just the right question to ask to stop you in your tracks.

Yes, my weakness is that sheer stupidity often renders me speechless. That doesn't make it the "right" question though. I cited David Von Trapped's own admission of a large occipital wound, which you are forced to deny. My point is pretty self-explanatory. Most morons even would understand it.

> > > I know exactly what I`m doing. You might not understand, but I do.

I think I heard this line in a Three Stooges episode once.

> You are using the same weak argument Ben that Ben uses, that Ben`s ad hominem isn`t really ad hominem. I don`t accept that...

What you accept in the tradition of ad-hominem means nothing to me.

> > > > Careful what you say next, troll...believers have already invented some nonsense called "jet effect" in an attempt to explain away why JFK is thrown backwards by a bullet from behind. Now saying his head moves forward contradicts your own LN nonsense. Bud would like to have his cock and eat it too.
> > >
> > > What you are responding to are not my words or my argument, idiot.
> >
> > Really? So you are prepared to admit your fellow believers are wrong?
>
> Are you prepared to admit you are an idiot for attributing someone elses arguments to me?

So you admit Alvarez is full of shit, and that at no point did you ever defend jet effect? Not even when you were forced to because everyone else was doing it? Which means you could probably cite yourself correcting one of your fellow LNers at some point. I'd really like to see some evidence of that.

> Conspiracy retards are the ones constantly demanding that it be explained. To me it is inconsequential.

Until you need it to argue some sort of "proof" of a shot from the rear. How amusing you are.

It's late. You're boring. Bluff, bluster and empty claims, lurkers. Bud is a liar. It's now documented fact.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:09:06 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Apparently you asked each one of them what their expertise is, and they all told you "medicine" and nothing else.
> >
> > Its what they teach in medical school.
>
> You, never having been to medical school, don't actually have any idea what is taught there, or how wounds anatomy is deconstructed, or what information can be gleaned on an operating table or a morgue.

But then again I`m not the one taking the untenable position that these doctors have the ability to determine bullet entrances from exits. You are.

> Again, it's important to point out the sheer ignorance on your part in assuming what a medical professional can ascertain and what they can't. I provided firsthand testimony. You did not. Except for this...

>
> > Senator COOPER - I would just ask this question. In your long experience
> > of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have you
> > acquired, through that. knowledge of ballistics and characteristics of
> > bullets?
> >
> > Dr. GREGORY - Within a very limited sphere.
> >
> > He realizes that just seeing a great deal of bullet holes doesn`t convey a great deal of knowledge of wound ballistics.
>
> Actually "Bud" is flat-out lying here, by omitting an important piece of the testimony. Here is the part our cowardly troll conveniently left out:

Left out because I lifted the quote from an old post, not from his testimony.

> Dr. GREGORY: I have been concerned with the behavior of missiles in contact with tissues, but I am not very knowledgeable about the design of a missile nor how many grains of powder there are behind it. My concern was with the dissipation of the energy which it carries and the havoc that it wreaks when it goes off.
>
> COOPER: You derived that knowledge from your actual study of wounds and their treatment?
>
> Dr. GREGORY: Study of wounds together with what I have read from the Army proving grounds, various centers, for exploring this kind of thing. I don't own a gun myself.
>
> So, just in case you need it broken down for you in very small sentences... his "limited sphere of knowledge" was in reference to ballistic design. NOT bullet wounds. In fact, he makes not one, but two points of specifying that his AREA OF STUDY involves the study of wounds, and the behavior of missiles in contact with tissues.

You might be right, he may have been speaking specifically about bullets and I mistook it for a comment about the whole field of wound ballistics.

> You are a DESPERATE liar...."Bud."
> >
> > And Dr Shaw had this to say...
> >
> > Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics
> > is just that of an average layman, no more.
>
>
> You are lying by omission again. Doubling down on your desperation, as evident. This is what immediately precedes (that means "come before") your quote of Shaw...
>
> COOPER: I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony you have had wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest.
> What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would this experience you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by bullets--have provided you knowledge also about the characteristics of missiles, particularly bullets of this type?
>
> And now, proceeding...
>
> Dr. SHAW: I have seen many bullets that have passed through bodies or have penetrated bodies and have struck bone and I know manners from which they are deformed but I know very little about the caliber of bullets, the velocity of bullets, many things that other people have much more knowledge of than I have.
>
> So the "preceding" part you omitted gives us Cooper's recognition of Dr. Shaw's "wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest." And the "proceeding" part you omitted exhibits that when Dr. Shaw said his knowledge was that of an "average layman", he was referring to bullet caliber and velocity. Nothing to do with wounds, or the medical effects thereof.

Wound ballistics is the science that marries the two fields. Shaw is a layman in that field.

> You are an utterly disingenuous liar. Twice.

So none of these four doctors have said they have the expertise necessary to determine bullet exits from entrances. So when it comes down to what we are discussing none of the doctors can be shown to have the expertise to make the necessary determination and none of the doctors made an examination to make such a determination.

> > > Such astounding ignorance, to think someone with medical expertise would be incapable of deconstructing a wound!
> >
> > Did either of the two witnesses you produced say they had the expertise to determine bullet entrance from exits?
>
> Define "expert," and explain how someone becomes an "expert" of something. This ought to be good...if you answer at all.

"expertise" is "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field." In this case it would be skill in determining bullet entrances from exits. You can`t show these doctors had this skill.

> > I`ve seen lots of airplanes, probably thousands. That doesn`t make me an expert on airplanes.
>
> I seriously doubt you know what an airplane is.

So you dodge the point. Seeing a lot of things doesn`t make you an expert. You can take note of general characteristics. Planes have two wings, ect. But these things can go against you when something unusual happens, like a plane with more than two wings.

A forensic scientist would never walk into a autopsy of a body shot multiple times and casually state "entrance, exit, exit, exit, entrance". He would carefully examine each wound because he would know that some exits have the characteristics of entrances and vice versa.

> > > > > and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?
> > > >
> > > > Wound ballistic experts and forensic scientists.
> > >
> > > Like Cyril Wecht.
> >
> > I don`t know hat his credentials are. Was he at Parkland when Kennedy was brought in?
>
> You know exactly what Cyril Wecht's credentials are and/or how to find them. You are so desperate now it's humiliating.

Why do I care that you feel the need to throw out random names?

>
> >
> > >
> > > And unlike Arlen Specter.
> >
> > Why don`t you name more people who weren`t there?
>
> Truly you're an imbecile.

Not so much as to think merely stating a name is making an argument.

> Let me explain. Arlen Specter invented the SBT. Except Arlen Specter is not a ballistics expert. He is not a weapons expert. He is not an expert in mathematics. He is not an expert in physics. So for all your whining about nobody being experts in anything, you now look even stupider than I thought was possible by defending a theory put forth by a guy who had no credentials to come to the conclusions he did. See how dumb you are? Also, the SBT was a hypothesis. That means...he guessed.

No, it wasn`t a hypothesis and hypothesis doesn`t mean "guess".

What Spector did was take the information obtained by experts and formulated a working theory. A strong one at that, since despite great effort you folks can do no harm to. He did it before the computer modeling was available to support it. He did it before the Discovery channel did their "Beyond the Magic Bullet" program. Interesting that these things that came along much later confirm the viability of his idea.

> > > > > That only requires faith on your part. Damage to the occipital is pretty common knowledge at this point. Even your lord and savior David Von Pissant is forced to admit it on his own website:
> > > >
> > > > Of course Kennedy had a wound in the occipital, that is where Oswald shot him.
> > >
> > > The troll is clearly unfamiliar with this image:
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/images/oHPjzX
> >
> > What about it?
> >
> > > Or these testimonials:
> > >
> > > CRENSHAW: The wound was the size of a baseball.
> > >
> > > CARRICO: There was a large - quite a large - defect about here on his skull.
> > >
> > > RIKE: You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole at the back of his head.
> > >
> > > O'CONNOR: [There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain.
> > >
> > > NURSE AUDREY BELL: There was a massive wound at the back of his head.
> > >
> > > McCLELLAND: It was in the right back part of the head - very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table as we were donig the tracheotomy.
> > >
> > > Or this image...
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/images/NsZgWA
> >
> > Why do all of these idiots suffer from the same incapacity when it comes to making arguments?
>
> Calling several doctors idiots and running away does not a refutation make. I should also mention they were all present. And you weren't.

What is your argument? Is it the usual "What about this, huh, huh?"

> > > The troll probably doesn't even know what Harper's Fragment is.
> >
> > I even know where it was found. Nowhere near where it would have been found if Kennedy was shot from the front.
>
> Idiot. Not only is that false, but where it was found doesn't even matter in the context of this argument.

You made no argument. And yes, where the Harper fragment was found does speak to the direction of the shot. If the trajectory of the large skull fragments seen blowing out if Kennedy`s head in the z-film went back, they would be deemed by the retards to be significant and they would demand that we explain how they could be going back from a shot from the rear. But since they go forward the tards act as if there is no significance to this. But the mist of blood that can hang in the air is significant.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/z-frags.jpg

>
> > > > >
> > > > > "I cannot deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in '63"
> > > > >
> > > > > Or will the troll now tell us large gaping wounds are yet another thing Parkland personnel have no area of expertise in? LOL!!
> > > >
> > > > Whats your point?
> > >
> > > Enough said.
> >
> > Yes, I knew just the right question to ask to stop you in your tracks.
>
> Yes, my weakness is that sheer stupidity often renders me speechless. That doesn't make it the "right" question though. I cited David Von Trapped's own admission of a large occipital wound, which you are forced to deny. My point is pretty self-explanatory. Most morons even would understand it.

You still aren`t making a point. You are pointing out that a number of people indicated a large occipital wound. Take that information and present an argument.

>
> > > > I know exactly what I`m doing. You might not understand, but I do.
>
> I think I heard this line in a Three Stooges episode once.
>
> > You are using the same weak argument Ben that Ben uses, that Ben`s ad hominem isn`t really ad hominem. I don`t accept that...
>
> What you accept in the tradition of ad-hominem means nothing to me.

That you were claiming to see a difference between Ben`s ad hominem and mine meant nothing to me.

> > > > > Careful what you say next, troll...believers have already invented some nonsense called "jet effect" in an attempt to explain away why JFK is thrown backwards by a bullet from behind. Now saying his head moves forward contradicts your own LN nonsense. Bud would like to have his cock and eat it too.
> > > >
> > > > What you are responding to are not my words or my argument, idiot.
> > >
> > > Really? So you are prepared to admit your fellow believers are wrong?
> >
> > Are you prepared to admit you are an idiot for attributing someone elses arguments to me?
>
> So you admit Alvarez is full of shit, and that at no point did you ever defend jet effect?

What needs defending? It is a demonstratable phenomenon of physics.

> Not even when you were forced to because everyone else was doing it? Which means you could probably cite yourself correcting one of your fellow LNers at some point. I'd really like to see some evidence of that.

I`d like a pony.

And even though I pointed out that I think the "back and left" movement is trivial if it isn`t caused by a bullet you keep the focus on this trivial aspect. This supports my contention that the conspiracy retards focus on the wrong things. If it was the right thing you could show the significance and how it gives insight into the event.

> > Conspiracy retards are the ones constantly demanding that it be explained. To me it is inconsequential.
>
> Until you need it to argue some sort of "proof" of a shot from the rear.

Whenever I discuss it it is always in response to a conspiracy retard bringing it up.

> How amusing you are.
>
> It's late. You're boring. Bluff, bluster and empty claims, lurkers. Bud is a liar. It's now documented fact.

Another conspiracy retard runner.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:09:06 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

> Yes, my weakness is that sheer stupidity often renders me speechless. That doesn't make it the "right" question though. I cited David Von Trapped's own admission of a large occipital wound...

You're a liar. I never admitted any such thing. The DVP quote you cited about me being "puzzled and concerned" by the Parkland doctors' claims of a BOH wound is certainly not an "admission" by me that *I* think there was a large BOH wound. And you're goofy if you think it is such an "admission". Maybe you'd better read it again, Mr. Boris Liar....

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

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> You're a liar. I never admitted any such thing. The DVP quote you cited about me being "puzzled and concerned" by the Parkland doctors' claims of a BOH wound is certainly not an "admission" by me that *I* think there was a large BOH wound. And you're goofy if you think it is such an "admission". Maybe you'd better read it again, Mr. Boris Liar....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html

I might have known. Admitting to a gaping BOH wound would be honest, and therefore completely out of character for you. Okay, let me read the next paragraph of your article...

“But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine) position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency room?”

Interesting. By that logic, how did they know he even had a bullet wound in his back?

That's fine, David, I'll concede I was wrong to claim what you wrote is the same as an admission on your part....IF you admit that you had to read the entirety of every post in this thread to find that remark, and in the process responded to NONE of the other challenges. Which also proves the likelihood that you have been lurking here every day of your "absence," responding to almost NONE of the challenges presented at you. Get on top of this stuff, David, you get paid for this shit. And you DO get paid to peddle the Lone Nut narrative. Your book proves that.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 9:49:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You're a liar. I never admitted any such thing. The DVP quote you cited about me being "puzzled and concerned" by the Parkland doctors' claims of a BOH wound is certainly not an "admission" by me that *I* think there was a large BOH wound. And you're goofy if you think it is such an "admission". Maybe you'd better read it again, Mr. Boris Liar....
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html
>
>
> I might have known. Admitting to a gaping BOH wound would be honest, and therefore completely out of character for you. Okay, let me read the next paragraph of your article...
>
> “But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine) position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency room?”
>
> Interesting. By that logic, how did they know he even had a bullet wound in his back?
>

They didn't.

You *actually* think the Parkland doctors knew about the bullet hole in JFK's upper back? (You're surely not *that* uninformed, are you?)

> That's fine, David, I'll concede I was wrong to claim what you wrote is the same as an admission on your part....IF you admit that you had to read the entirety of every post in this thread to find that remark, and in the process responded to NONE of the other challenges. Which also proves the likelihood that you have been lurking here every day of your "absence," responding to almost NONE of the challenges presented at you.

I respond to CTers whenever I feel the mood to do so. I don't let imbeciles like Ben dictate how and when I should respond to posts. I'm very similar to Bud in that regard. And, yes, I check out these threads every day....but mostly only to read Bud's excellent posts. Posting material myself is only a secondary reason for looking at the threads here at The Asylum.

> Get on top of this stuff, David, you get paid for this shit. And you DO get paid to peddle the Lone Nut narrative. Your book proves that.

I haven't seen a dime from the book in about 2 years now. (Not much of a market for "Common Sense Relating To The JFK Case", I guess.)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > Interesting. By that logic, how did they know he even had a bullet wound in his back?
> >
>
> They didn't.
>
> You *actually* think the Parkland doctors knew about the bullet hole in JFK's upper back? (You're surely not *that* uninformed, are you?)

No, you fool. I mean *ever*. It was a rhetorical question. Because you obviously seem to think every doctor I cited was just IMAGINING the large BOH wound. Which they would had to have been, wouldn't they?

> I respond to CTers whenever I feel the mood to do so. I don't let imbeciles like Ben dictate how and when I should respond to posts. I'm very similar to Bud in that regard. And, yes, I check out these threads every day....but mostly only to read Bud's excellent posts. Posting material myself is only a secondary reason for looking at the threads here at The Asylum.

I suppose you don't realize what a pussy you look like, being not only called a liar but SHOWN to be one, and to not even have the balls to step up to the plate and defend yourself. No wonder your book sales are for shit. At least Posner had the spine to debate in a public forum (even if it was Roger Stone). It says something about your character as well, that you refer to posts by a guy whose refutations are 95% ad hominems as "excellent."

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 12:40:31 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Interesting. By that logic, how did they know he even had a bullet wound in his back?
> > >
> >
> > They didn't.
> >
> > You *actually* think the Parkland doctors knew about the bullet hole in JFK's upper back? (You're surely not *that* uninformed, are you?)
>
> No, you fool. I mean *ever*. It was a rhetorical question. Because you obviously seem to think every doctor I cited was just IMAGINING the large BOH wound. Which they would had to have been, wouldn't they?
>

Not exactly. There are other explanations that could have some credence, i.e.:

"As I said before, I cannot fully explain the strange "BOH" tale that has
been told by so many Parkland (and Bethesda) people since 1963. But I'm
certainly not willing to insult the basic intelligence of multiple
professional medical technicians, doctors, and nurses by speculating (as
author Jim Moore does in his book "Conspiracy Of One") that NONE of these
people could tell the SIDE of a patient's head from the BACK of his
cranium. That's just crazy, IMO.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html

If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different
observers could all see the same (wrong) thing re: JFK's head wound, I'd
say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming
from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling
toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the
hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers
that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen.

I think it's also possible (and, I admit, this is just a guess as well)
that when Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy was "trying to hold his head on" (as
Mrs. Kennedy later said) during the high-speed ride to the hospital, it's
quite possible that the loose piece of "hinged" scalp (which is a "flap"
of skull/scalp that can be seen in the autopsy photos taken at Bethesda
after the body was returned to Washington) was at least partially hiding
the large hole at the right side of JFK's head when he was in the
emergency room at Parkland.

This "flap" of loose scalp could then have dislodged itself from INSIDE
the cratered wound on the right side of the head before the autopsy photos
were taken on the night of November 22. The "flap", as seen in the photos,
is not covering any portion of the right-side head wound, but instead is
hinged "outward" from the wound.

Whether that "flap" was configured in that exact "outward" position at
Parkland, we can never know. But I think it's certainly a possibility that
the "flap" could have been covering the large exit wound, especially in
light of the fact that Jackie Kennedy, we know, was physically handling
the President's head during the drive to Parkland, and also was "trying to
hold his head on"." -- DVP; January 2007

> > I respond to CTers whenever I feel the mood to do so. I don't let imbeciles like Ben dictate how and when I should respond to posts. I'm very similar to Bud in that regard. And, yes, I check out these threads every day....but mostly only to read Bud's excellent posts. Posting material myself is only a secondary reason for looking at the threads here at The Asylum.
>
> I suppose you don't realize what a pussy you look like, being not only called a liar but SHOWN to be one, and to not even have the balls to step up to the plate and defend yourself.

What a laugh. I've "defended" the Lone Assassin position thousands of times. (As I'm sure you already know.) I choose not to *repeat* each point I have made over the years every time any Tom, Dick, Ben, or Boris makes some bogus claim about LHO or the JFK case. That's what my archives are for. In more recent years, sometimes I feel like battling with you CT clowns on some specific points. But mostly I leave it to Bud to dismantle the poor arguments made by you guys.

> No wonder your book sales are for shit. At least Posner had the spine to debate in a public forum (even if it was Roger Stone). It says something about your character as well, that you refer to posts by a guy whose refutations are 95% ad hominems as "excellent."

Internet CTers rarely deserve more than ad homs.

[David Von Pein]

BOH Addendum....

"I will (again) admit that the BOH situation is my #1 snafu (if I may
be allowed to call it that) in the whole case. And I don't have all
the answers (quite obviously). It's a toughie, no doubt.

But you [John Canal] said something the other day that makes me curious too.....
You said that you'd be willing to accept the idea that a larger-sized
(non-entry) BOH wound at the back of JFK's head was only about the
size of a "quarter". But how would a small BOH wound of that
particular size equate to a much larger wound that so many Parkland
witnesses claim they saw?

Seems to me there's still a large gap between Parkland and Bethesda if
you're willing to accept merely a "quarter"-sized BOH (non-entry)
wound.

So I'm just wondering how you can reconcile (in your mind) a "quarter"-
sized BOH wound AND the Parkland witnesses who saw nothing nearly that
tiny (per their accounts of the wound)?

I'm still leaning toward the scenario I put on the table earlier (and
has probably been postulated over the years by many other people too
that I am unaware of) -- and that is the very real possibility that
the Parkland witnesses equated the blood and gore that was pooling to
the back of JFK's head to there being a "wound" in that BOH area of
the head.

Now, given that scenario, we're still left to ask another very
important question, and that is this -- Why in the world didn't any of
those Parkland witnesses ALSO see the ACTUAL large "chiefly parietal"
exit wound on the FRONT/RIGHT/TOP of the President's head? How could every Parkland witness totally MISS seeing the actual exit wound that we can
easily see here?.....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

How could some Parkland witnesses possibly NOT comment on that obvious
disruption at the right/front of JFK's head? It just doesn't make
sense.

UNLESS -- As fate would have it, the rather incredible scenario
occurred that was outlined previously, i.e., Jackie Kennedy literally
DID PIECE JFK'S HEAD BACK TOGETHER (temporarily anyway, using that
"hinged" flap we can see in some of the autopsy pictures) during the
drive to Parkland Hospital, thereby re-arranging the way the right/
front exit wound appeared to the witnesses inside the Parkland
emergency room....in essence, masking the wound's existence entirely.

I'll admit, that explanation doesn't fully satisfy me either, just as
it probably won't satisfy anyone else. Because even if Jackie DID
"piece" the head back together again in some jimmy-rigged fashion (as
she did say she attempted to do), I'd STILL think that the disruption
of the skull would have been noticed by at least a few Parkland
witnesses on November 22...even WITH the "hinged flap" put back in its
proper place on the head.

But, since we weren't in that Parkland emergency room that day, it's
impossible to know for sure just exactly what JFK's head looked like
to the witnesses who were there.

I'm just trying to use the physical evidence of the President's body
and the autopsy photos (and Jackie's own words as well) to piece
together some kind of logical explanation where, in effect, EVERYBODY
CAN BE RIGHT -- from Parkland to Bethesda." -- DVP; April 23, 2007

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/CBDDWCqGLn0/AuKSh5k-5QMJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:18:38 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>> Yes, my weakness is that sheer stupidity often renders me speechless. That doesn't make it the "right" question though. I cited David Von Trapped's own admission of a large occipital wound...
>
> You're a liar. I never admitted any such thing. The DVP quote you
> cited about me being "puzzled and concerned" by the Parkland doctors'
> claims of a BOH wound is certainly not an "admission" by me that *I*
> think there was a large BOH wound. And you're goofy if you think it is
> such an "admission". Maybe you'd better read it again, Mr. Boris
> Liar....

It's truly amusing to watch believers deny that there was a large
wound in the occipital parietal area, despite the Autopsy Report
stating EXACTLY this, and dozens of medical witnesses to that effect.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:49:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> I respond to CTers whenever I feel the mood to do so. I don't let
> imbeciles like Ben dictate how and when I should respond to posts.

And yet, strangely enough, this "imbecile" schools you repeatedly on
the evidence in this case. Why is that David?

Amusingly, I can't even get you to publicly acknowledge that had the
large head wound been ENTIRELY in the Parietal, IT COULD STILL HAVE
BEEN IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD!!!

Perhaps David is just spatially challenged...

Clearly, however, you think that ad hominem will allow you to evade
defending your lies.

Trust me, there's a *REASON* most of America accepts a conspiracy in
this case. And the cowardice & obvious dishonesty of you and other
fellow believers is a large part of that reason for interested people
searching the Internet for the truth.

> I'm very similar to Bud in that regard.

Yep... dufus is a coward too.

> And, yes, I check out these
> threads every day....but mostly only to read Bud's excellent posts.
> Posting material myself is only a secondary reason for looking at the
> threads here at The Asylum.

stump gets schooled everyday too.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:23:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 12:40:31 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Interesting. By that logic, how did they know he even had a bullet wound in his back?
>> > >
>> >
>> > They didn't.
>> >
>> > You *actually* think the Parkland doctors knew about the bullet hole in JFK's upper back? (You're surely not *that* uninformed, are you?)
>>
>> No, you fool. I mean *ever*. It was a rhetorical question. Because you obviously seem to think every doctor I cited was just IMAGINING the large BOH wound. Which they would had to have been, wouldn't they?
>>
>
>Not exactly. There are other explanations that could have some credence, i.e.:
>
>"As I said before, I cannot fully explain the strange "BOH" tale that has
>been told by so many Parkland (and Bethesda) people since 1963. But I'm
>certainly not willing to insult the basic intelligence of multiple
>professional medical technicians, doctors, and nurses by speculating (as
>author Jim Moore does in his book "Conspiracy Of One") that NONE of these
>people could tell the SIDE of a patient's head from the BACK of his
>cranium. That's just crazy, IMO.
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html
>
>If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different
>observers could all see the same (wrong) thing re: JFK's head wound, I'd
>say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming
>from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling
>toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the
>hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers
>that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen.

Yep... doctors are stupid that way. They see blood, and get confused
about the actual location of the woundbecause they so rarely see
wounds caused by a 6.5mm bullet.

WHAT A MORON!!!

Of course, this *stupid* explanation fails completely for the
Autopsy... which ALSO puts the wound in the back of the head.

>I think it's also possible (and, I admit, this is just a guess as well)
>that when Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy was "trying to hold his head on" (as
>Mrs. Kennedy later said) during the high-speed ride to the hospital, it's
>quite possible that the loose piece of "hinged" scalp (which is a "flap"
>of skull/scalp that can be seen in the autopsy photos taken at Bethesda
>after the body was returned to Washington) was at least partially hiding
>the large hole at the right side of JFK's head when he was in the
>emergency room at Parkland.

Sadly for you silly explanation, the Autopsy Report was quite specific
as to the size & location of the large head wound.

>This "flap" of loose scalp could then have dislodged itself from INSIDE
>the cratered wound on the right side of the head before the autopsy photos
>were taken on the night of November 22. The "flap", as seen in the photos,
>is not covering any portion of the right-side head wound, but instead is
>hinged "outward" from the wound.
>
>Whether that "flap" was configured in that exact "outward" position at
>Parkland, we can never know. But I think it's certainly a possibility that
>the "flap" could have been covering the large exit wound,

"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

You're lying again, David.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BOH Addendum....
>
>"I will (again) admit that the BOH situation is my #1 snafu (if I may
>be allowed to call it that) in the whole case. And I don't have all
>the answers (quite obviously). It's a toughie, no doubt.
>
>But you [John Canal] said something the other day that makes me curious too.....
>You said that you'd be willing to accept the idea that a larger-sized
>(non-entry) BOH wound at the back of JFK's head was only about the
>size of a "quarter". But how would a small BOH wound of that
>particular size equate to a much larger wound that so many Parkland
>witnesses claim they saw?
>
>Seems to me there's still a large gap between Parkland and Bethesda if
>you're willing to accept merely a "quarter"-sized BOH (non-entry)
>wound.
>
>So I'm just wondering how you can reconcile (in your mind) a "quarter"-
>sized BOH wound AND the Parkland witnesses who saw nothing nearly that
>tiny (per their accounts of the wound)?
>
>I'm still leaning toward the scenario I put on the table earlier (and
>has probably been postulated over the years by many other people too
>that I am unaware of) -- and that is the very real possibility that
>the Parkland witnesses equated the blood and gore that was pooling to
>the back of JFK's head to there being a "wound" in that BOH area of
>the head.

BZZZZZZT!!!! FAIL!

Dr. McClelland: "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and
I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been
extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone
was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost
along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone
being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones
that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into
the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least,
of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the
cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...."

He wasn't paying any attention at all to "blood."

>Now, given that scenario, we're still left to ask another very
>important question, and that is this -- Why in the world didn't any of
>those Parkland witnesses ALSO see the ACTUAL large "chiefly parietal"
>exit wound on the FRONT/RIGHT/TOP of the President's head? How could every Parkland witness totally MISS seeing the actual exit wound that we can
>easily see here?.....
>
>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG
>
>How could some Parkland witnesses possibly NOT comment on that obvious
>disruption at the right/front of JFK's head? It just doesn't make
>sense.

Not under *YOUR* theory of the case.

But I can explain it simply and credibly, with supporting evidence.

>UNLESS -- As fate would have it, the rather incredible scenario
>occurred that was outlined previously, i.e., Jackie Kennedy literally
>DID PIECE JFK'S HEAD BACK TOGETHER (temporarily anyway, using that
>"hinged" flap we can see in some of the autopsy pictures) during the
>drive to Parkland Hospital, thereby re-arranging the way the right/
>front exit wound appeared to the witnesses inside the Parkland
>emergency room....in essence, masking the wound's existence entirely.

Not possible. This wound was devoid of bone and scalp.

>I'll admit, that explanation doesn't fully satisfy me either

It would satisfy *NO-ONE* familiar with the actual evidence.

Because the evidence contradicts you.

>, just as
>it probably won't satisfy anyone else. Because even if Jackie DID
>"piece" the head back together again in some jimmy-rigged fashion (as
>she did say she attempted to do), I'd STILL think that the disruption
>of the skull would have been noticed by at least a few Parkland
>witnesses on November 22...even WITH the "hinged flap" put back in its
>proper place on the head.
>
>But, since we weren't in that Parkland emergency room that day, it's
>impossible to know for sure just exactly what JFK's head looked like
>to the witnesses who were there.
>
>I'm just trying to use the physical evidence of the President's body
>and the autopsy photos (and Jackie's own words as well) to piece
>together some kind of logical explanation where, in effect, EVERYBODY
>CAN BE RIGHT -- from Parkland to Bethesda." -- DVP; April 23, 2007

They are.

You simply can't understand what was being done to JFK between 1840
and 2000.

So you need to deny what the witnesses said they saw.


>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/CBDDWCqGLn0/AuKSh5k-5QMJ

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 12:31:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:49:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I respond to CTers whenever I feel the mood to do so. I don't let
> > imbeciles like Ben dictate how and when I should respond to posts.
>
> And yet, strangely enough, this "imbecile" schools you repeatedly on
> the evidence in this case. Why is that David?
>
> Amusingly, I can't even get you to publicly acknowledge that had the
> large head wound been ENTIRELY in the Parietal, IT COULD STILL HAVE
> BEEN IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD!!!
>
> Perhaps David is just spatially challenged...
>
> Clearly, however, you think that ad hominem will allow you to evade
> defending your lies.
>
> Trust me, there's a *REASON* most of America accepts a conspiracy in
> this case.

And Ben hasn`t the slightest idea what that reason is, lurkers, he proceeds with his usual "this is all I need to know" approach when he likes the sound of something.

> And the cowardice & obvious dishonesty of you and other
> fellow believers is a large part of that reason for interested people
> searching the Internet for the truth.

An actual investigation of this phenomenon would likely find that people who do this are actually looking for validation of the ideas they already have. What you have with the assassination is no different than what the 9-11 Truthers do, and for likely the same reasons. They have themselves convinced they are in pursuit of the truth (at least that is what they tell themselves). There are other social implications, the thrill of an "AH HA!" moment when you find something useful to you and your fellow "truth-seekers", delusion that there are bad guys out there somewhere who have escaped punishment, ect. Only a small percentage fall down the rabbit hole, some are satisfied with their vague suspicions that something fishy happened and move on.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

And Dud, I mean Bud, blathers some more worthless non-sequitur horseshit unrelated to the evidence presented. In LNer Land it's easier to dismiss the testimony of a dozen doctors than address it.

DVP *tries,* but his attempt proves more pitiful than *not* trying.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> And Dud, I mean Bud, blathers some more worthless non-sequitur horseshit unrelated to the evidence presented. In LNer Land it's easier to dismiss the testimony of a dozen doctors than address it.

I didn`t dismiss it, I challenged you to make an argument using it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

It's a simple question. David has asserted HIS OPINION as evidence of
something.

So he needs to demonstrate some exceptional expertise.

Because he's REFUSING to cite any authority on the topic.

> First off Ben thinks the personnel at Parkland can determine a
> bullet entrance from a bullet exit, something they have no expertise
> in.

Another unsupported claim.

Watch as dufus offers *NO* authoritative cite that contradicts their
great deal of experience with gunshot wounds.

> But worse than that in the other thread Ben implies he has the
> expertise to determine the precise instant Connally was struck by a
> bullet.

And indeed, I'm merely agreeing with Connally and the Warren
Commission.

stump continues to run from explaining what is seen on the extant
Z-film.

He's TERRIFIED of explaining just what caused the *actual* reaction
seen in the film to Connally being shot.

> Now Ben claims it requires expertise to note that the back of
> Kennedy`s head shows no sign of being blown out in the Zapruder film.

Nope. Nothing other than eyes to see, and the knowledge that the wound
is there.


> Can somebody make a real case that I'm *not* a retard playing silly

> games with the deaths of these men?

Nope. I don't believe so.

> I don`t think such a case can be made.

I already said that.

>> It certainly can't be expertise that's worth anything, because *YOU*
>> believe that his back and to the left movement is causes by a shot
>> coming from behind.
>
> It can`t be the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back of the head
> that causes this movement as that bullet was long gone before Kennedy
> starts a backward motion, lurkers.

stump is happy to claim what happened, but notice that yet again he's
refused to explain that 'back and to the left' reaction.

Why the cowardice dufus?

>> So all you're doing is offering your *WORTHLESS* opinion that is based
>> on nothing other than your faith.
>

> Ben hates ..

Nope. No "hatred" involved... I merely point out that no-one need
accept the *opinion* of someone with no training or expertise to offer
such opinion.

If you tried to explain the best defense to Uchimata, or why it's
important to have a driving leg on Osoto Gari, I'd simply laugh at
you, because YOU HAVE NO EXPERTISE TO OFFER SUCH OPINIONS.

Nor does David on video film analysis. Especially when it contradicts
dozens of witnesses, and the film itself.

>> Other people have no problems using the extant Z-film to pinpoint a
>> large back of the head wound. That *YOU* can't see it means next to
>> nothing at all. The things you "can't see" in this case are legion.
>
> Notice Ben attributes this unsupported argument to "other people",
> lurkers.

Indeed. A quick search over on the Education forum will allow you to
list many people who see what David can't.

And where is David's support for his claim???

>> > It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
>> > film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
>> > JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting.
>>
>> Then you're simply blind... as it's quite clear in several frames that
>> the back of JFK's head is missing. Z-337 has been noted by many
>> critics as one of the clearer frames showing the damage reported by
>> dozens of witnesses - AND the autopsy report.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000010.htm


Then you're simply blind... as it's quite clear in several frames that
the back of JFK's head is missing. Z-337 has been noted by many
critics as one of the clearer frames showing the damage reported by
dozens of witnesses - AND the autopsy report.


>> It's amusing that believers keep pretending to believe the autopsy
>> report, even when it **CLEARLY** places the large head wound on the
>> *BACK* of JFK's head.
>
> The back of Kennedy`s head is largely undamaged in the z-film, as this article shows...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000010.htm


It's amusing that believers keep pretending to believe the autopsy
report, even when it **CLEARLY** places the large head wound on the
*BACK* of JFK's head.

Notice that stump didn't even dare deny it.

>> > The RIGHT-FRONT portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious
>> > that it's the FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by
>> > the swiftly-moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the
>> > actions of an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the
>> > front?
>>
>> Nope and nope.
>>
>> Interestingly, David follows all other believers in his absolute
>> SILENCE on the trail of bullet fragments in the X-ray... and the
>> direction it clearly shows the bullet traveling.
>
> Empty claims, lurkers.

Then you'll be happy to CITE where David or other believers have
previously mentioned this trail of fragments, and explained in
scientific detail how it shows the direction of the bullet.

For if you cannot, you've simply demonstrated yourself a proven liar.

> When Ben really needs an expert`s opinion he relies on his own
> meaningless assertions.

Cite an "expert" on what believers have said or not said on the trail
of bullet fragments in JFK's head X-ray.

But you won't.

You're simply lying again...

>> David's a coward.
>>
>>
>> > In addition (and probably more importantly), the Zapruder Film, when
>> > viewed in super-slow-motion -- LIKE THIS CLIP -- verifies beyond
>> > question that President Kennedy's head moves FORWARD (not backward) at
>> > the critical MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating that the fatal bullet that
>> > hit his head came from BEHIND him and not from the front or
>> > right-front of JFK's limousine.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You focus on a split second,
>
> He focuses on where Kennedy is clearly struck by a bullet,
> lurkers. The retards want to focus everywhere but the most relevant
> frame.

You focus on a split second and one that's blurry at that, completely
disregard the fact that *ALL* people in the limo moved forward...

>>and one that's blurry at that, completely
>> disregard the fact that *ALL* people in the limo moved forward,
>
> Ben is lying, Jackie is not going forward when Kennedy is struck.

So Connally, Nelly, Greer, and Kellerman were all shot.

What *AMAZING* logic you have there, moron!

> And it is irrelevant anyway, because Kennedy is the person who was
> struck by a bullet at that instant, lurkers. And when his head was
> struck by a bullet his head went forward.

The bullet *caused* his head to move forward, so when Connally, Nelly,
Greer moved forward, they were shot too, right?

Go ahead stump, tell us the "right idea" here... tell us how to
"correctly" analyze the evidence.

>> and
>> simply deny the much larger and longer (in both distance and time)
>> movement back and to the left.
>
> Bullets just don`t throw people violently back like that, lurkers.

Empty claim.

> They just don`t, it is against the laws of physics.

Empty claim. Indeed, you can't name the "law of physics" that show
that reaction doesn't follow action...

> The amount of force Kennedy had exerted on his body was nearly
> exactly the force exerted on Oswald when he took the shot.

Untrue.

Unless, of course, *ALL* that force could be put into the same area on
Oswald.

> A force that could throw a person of Kennedy weight violently in
> any direction would likewise throw Oswald`s scrawny ass across the
> room, and he would have only gotten the first shot off.

This simply shows that you've never fired a gun before.

> This doesn`t happen, there was just enough force exerted by Oswald`s
> bullet to nudge Kennedy head forward a small amount.

Congratulations! dufus has proven that JFK never went 'back and to the
left'.

But the sad fact is, even a moron can view the film and see JFK's
action.

And you're TERRIFIED of explaing it.

You can't.

>> You can't explain it... so you simply ignore it.
>

> I'm a retard merely playing silly games with Kennedy`s death.

Yep.

And *still* no explanation...

>> Amusingly, you can't figure out why this forward movement *IS NOT
>> SEEN* in the extant film by the casual viewer, yet witnesses in Dealey
>> Plaza noted it.
>
> You would have to take into consideration where the witness was
> viewing the shooting from, lurkers. It may have looked more pronounced
> from other vantages, like the other side.

Ah! The famous physic's law of the primacy of the Left Side over that
of the Right Side.

Why didn't *I* think of that!


> https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

We see the effects of the shot, then INSTANTLY see JFK's body moving

back and to the left.

What's your explanation stump?

>> > Also -- If JFK had been shot from the infamous "Grassy Knoll" (which
>> > was located to the right-front of Kennedy's car at the time he was
>> > shot), why wasn't there any damage to the LEFT side of President
>> > Kennedy's head?
>>
>> Because Dr. Clark was right. A tangential strike need offer no damage
>> at all to the left side of JFK's head.
>>
>> And no matter how many times we point this out, you just repeat the
>> same nonsense a year or two later.
>
> Actually what Ben is spouting is nonsense. How does a tangential
> strike from the grassy knoll slice off the front of Kennedy`s head and
> not hit Jackie?

You mean Jackie was behind JFK in line with a tangential strike!!!???

Prove it.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif
>
> It just doesn`t work, and shows the absurd lengths the retards are
> willing to go to contest reality.

Your empty claim opinion fails to overthrow Dr. Clark's opinion -
which was based on his observation and medical training.

>> > Instead, the left side of his head remained completely
>> > intact and undamaged, as can easily be seen in this autopsy photograph
>> > HERE.
>>
>> No need to look - you're implying that critics would argue damage on
>> the left side of JFK. That's silly.
>>
>> Once again, David has failed to produce the evidence of Oswald's "sole
>> guilt."
>>
>> And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge
>> this.
>
> Ben is too stupid to understand the concept, lurkers.

And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to publicly acknowledge

this... was I right again!? Of course.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 10:43:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 12:31:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:49:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I respond to CTers whenever I feel the mood to do so. I don't let
>> > imbeciles like Ben dictate how and when I should respond to posts.
>>
>> And yet, strangely enough, this "imbecile" schools you repeatedly on
>> the evidence in this case. Why is that David?
>>
>> Amusingly, I can't even get you to publicly acknowledge that had the
>> large head wound been ENTIRELY in the Parietal, IT COULD STILL HAVE
>> BEEN IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD!!!
>>
>> Perhaps David is just spatially challenged...
>>
>> Clearly, however, you think that ad hominem will allow you to evade
>> defending your lies.
>>
>> Trust me, there's a *REASON* most of America accepts a conspiracy in
>> this case.
>

> And Ben hasn`t the slightest idea ...


Says the stump with the minority view...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 7:38:07 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > The irony and hypocrisy are rich here, lurkers. First off Ben thinks the personnel at Parkland can determine a bullet entrance from a bullet exit, something they have no expertise in.
>>
>> Tell us, Dr. Troll, exactly what each of the Parkland doctors' area of expertise was,
>
> Medicine.
>
>> and also, who *would* have expertise in bullet wounds?
>
> Wound ballistic experts and forensic scientists.

Did Dr. Finck have the requisite knowledge & experience?

It's a yes or no question that I predict you'll refuse to answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> And Dud, I mean Bud, blathers some more worthless non-sequitur
>> horseshit unrelated to the evidence presented. In LNer Land it's
>> easier to dismiss the testimony of a dozen doctors than address it.
>
> I didn`t dismiss it, I challenged you to make an argument using it.

Nah...

You ran... as you do...

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

>> DVP *tries,* but his attempt proves more pitiful than *not* trying.

stump can't publicly acknowledge facts that dispute his faith.