NOVA Cold Case JFK - PBS

[claviger]

NOVA | Cold Case JFK - PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html
Fifty years later, what can science tell us about the Kennedy assassination--and
the investigations that followed? The 1963 murder, in broad daylight in front of ...

[mainframetech]

I always thought highly of the NOVA program. But lately they've lost
my admiration for some of the attitudes they took, and even more recently,
what they said incorrectly about the physicians and their statements about
the autopsy photographs! Here's a snippet on that:

"On leaving, they were asked by Nova if their recollections disagreed
with the photographs. This time many investigators expected that they
would disagree, but now-another kind of surprise-these physicians seemed
to imply that they had seen no discrepancies. Nonetheless, on subsequent
careful questioning, they later complained that the Nova program had
either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments (Harrison Livingstone,
Killing the Truth 1993, p. 305), meaning that the paradox was still alive.
In particular, as Livingstone clarifies, all that these doctors had meant
was that the pictures they saw in the Archives were the same as the
pictures that had been publicly published."

From: "Murder in Dealey Plaza", article "Paradoxes of the JFK
Assassination - The Medical Evidence" by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD page 233

Chris

[bigdog]

Typical conspiracy hobbyist approach when faced with inconvenient
evidence. Spin it to make it seem to indicate exactly the opposite of what
it actually indicates.

[mainframetech]

As usual WRONG! There is NO spin there, and any one that wants to can
check it out and be sure of that. You of course, need badly to cover over
many things that are coming out, and so you get a 'bd' award for today,
even though I caught this one and stopped it.

Oh, BTW, that's Mantik talking, if you didn't notice before...:)

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- show quoted text -

I always thought highly of the NOVA program. But lately they've lost
my admiration for some of the attitudes they took, and even more recently,
what they said incorrectly about the physicians and their statements about
the autopsy photographs! Here's a snippet on that:

"On leaving, they were asked by Nova if their recollections disagreed
with the photographs. This time many investigators expected that they
would disagree, but now-another kind of surprise-these physicians seemed
to imply that they had seen no discrepancies. Nonetheless, on subsequent
careful questioning, they later complained that the Nova program had
either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments (Harrison Livingstone,
Killing the Truth 1993, p. 305), meaning that the paradox was still alive.
In particular, as Livingstone clarifies, all that these doctors had meant
was that the pictures they saw in the Archives were the same as the
pictures that had been publicly published."

From: "Murder in Dealey Plaza", article "Paradoxes of the JFK
Assassination - The Medical Evidence" by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD page 233

Chris


That quote is a lie. The doctors said that the X-rays matched what they saw at Parkland. This is recorded in the NOVA documentary. Mantik offers second hand hearsay, claiming that Livingstone "clarified" what the doctors really meant to say.

A despicable twisting of the truth.

[mainframetech]

Read it again. You've made an error, as usual! First, we're not in
court, so your comment about hearsay has no bearing on anything. Folks
can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. The LNs often
use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.

And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
this into a monster...:)

Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
altered. The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
people that would agree with them.

Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Groden published photos of them putting their hand where they saw the
head wound, not that you would even know about that. You certainly don't
know how to Google it.

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- show quoted text -

Read it again. You've made an error, as usual! First, we're not in
court, so your comment about hearsay has no bearing on anything. Folks
can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. The LNs often
use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.

And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
this into a monster...:)

Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
altered. The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
people that would agree with them.

Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.

Chris

The Parkland doctors stated that the autopsy photos and X-rays reflected
what they saw in Trauma Room One. These statements were recorded, and they
shoot down your silly theory of body/photo/X-Ray alteration.

So you quote another conspiracy nut, who quotes yet another nut, who says
that the Parkland doctors did not really mean to say what they did in fact
say. Neither of these nuts offers any proof that the doctors recanted
their statements.

One nut quoting another nut who invented statements out of thin air. That
is why it is hearsay and is useless as evidence of anything except the
fact that conspiracy mongers will believe anything and everything they
read as long as it supports whatever harebrained theory they choose to
espouse.

[claviger]

The fact so many doctors in ER were able to observe the head wound is
proof it was not in back of the head. The President was in the
Trendelenburg position in TR1 which means the McClelland drawing is wrong.
Dr McClelland confirmed the autopsy X-rays were correct in 1988. Three
other ER doctors confirmed those X-rays as well. This is conclusive
evidence your preposterous allegation of fake photos is ridiculous.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 1:59:28 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
> - show quoted text -
> Read it again. You've made an error, as usual! First, we're not in
> court, so your comment about hearsay has no bearing on anything. Folks
> can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. The LNs often
> use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.
>
> And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
> this into a monster...:)
>
> Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
> hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
> altered. The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
> hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
> people that would agree with them.
>
> Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> The Parkland doctors stated that the autopsy photos and X-rays reflected
> what they saw in Trauma Room One. These statements were recorded, and they
> shoot down your silly theory of body/photo/X-Ray alteration.
>

Where are those statements?

> So you quote another conspiracy nut, who quotes yet another nut, who says
> that the Parkland doctors did not really mean to say what they did in fact
> say. Neither of these nuts offers any proof that the doctors recanted
> their statements.
>

Again you offer your personal opinion about people with NO backup
whatsoever. Why would anyone believe you? Because your blatting your
opinion? Naah.

> One nut quoting another nut who invented statements out of thin air. That
> is why it is hearsay and is useless as evidence of anything except the
> fact that conspiracy mongers will believe anything and everything they
> read as long as it supports whatever harebrained theory they choose to
> espouse.

Denialists will sure enough try to get away with saying their opinion,
as if it meant something, which it doesn't. Backed up with something it
might though. But where's the backup? Nowhere.

"Hearsay'? Sorry, you're not in court. It means nothing at the moment.
Wait until you get into a court and have to prove something. Then it
might matter.

I see no statements that you mentioned. Where are they? Where's the
links to them? Have you forgotten how things are done here? But you
supply nothing but your opinion which means nothing here without backup.
As far as I'm concerned, you've basically said nothing!

Chris

[Bud]

It speak to your ability to weigh information.

> Folks
> can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not.

The truth is not a flavor of ice cream you get to decide whether you
like.

> The LNs often
> use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.

LNers use reality to combat bad hobbyist ideas and fantasy.

> And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
> this into a monster...:)
>
> Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
> hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
> altered.

No, it makes those witnesses wrong.

> The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
> hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
> people that would agree with them.
>
> Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.

Conspiracy hobbyists have to pretend the evidence in this case is faked
or altered, the evidence does not support their silly ideas.

> Chris

[mainframetech]

If you had thought that through, you would have realized that the wound
was slightly to the right f the BOH, and could be seen even from a
distance. One just had to lower their head to see the damage peeking out.
And a simple turn of the head to the left would show many at once the
'large hole'. Remember too, that the descriptions of the doctors in the
ER said that brains were oozing out while they watched, so that could also
be seen.

If you see brains on the table next to a head, it's pretty obvious
where they came from, and it couldn't be a pinhole they came out of. It
had to be a hole of some size, which was the case. Think it through.
Over 65 people see this 'large hole' in the BOH, and you're still living
with the silly theories and phony bull they spread for the public to keep
them in the dark!

Chris

[claviger]

Name the 65 people. You can't because your list of 40+ collapsed down to
20 and even those are now in doubt. Dr Duke walked in TR1, took one look
and walked out knowing it was hopeless. No way he could have observed the
wound that quickly had it been where you say it was. He described it
accurately as being on top of the head. You lost this debate because of
sloppy research on your touted list of 40+ that wasn't.

[Bud]

So now your list is reduced to those who said they turned JFK`s head.
How many is that?

> Remember too, that the descriptions of the doctors in the
> ER said that brains were oozing out while they watched, so that could also
> be seen.
>
> If you see brains on the table next to a head, it's pretty obvious
> where they came from,

Now you are talking about assumption, not observation.

> and it couldn't be a pinhole they came out of. It
> had to be a hole of some size, which was the case. Think it through.

Think it through, you just admitted that witnesses saw brains and
assumed a large hole in the back of Kennedy`s head.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/2/2015 10:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 1:59:28 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> mainframetech
>> - show quoted text -
>> Read it again. You've made an error, as usual! First, we're not in
>> court, so your comment about hearsay has no bearing on anything. Folks
>> can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. The LNs often
>> use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.
>>
>> And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
>> this into a monster...:)
>>
>> Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
>> hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
>> altered. The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
>> hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
>> people that would agree with them.
>>
>> Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> The Parkland doctors stated that the autopsy photos and X-rays reflected
>> what they saw in Trauma Room One. These statements were recorded, and they
>> shoot down your silly theory of body/photo/X-Ray alteration.
>>
>
>
> Where are those statements?
>

You're asking a WC defender to prove something?
Not fair.
What are, a Communist?

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. In the trauma room the Trendelenburg position is not used. And what
are you calling the McClelland drawing? It does not show the President on
the gurney. It was drawn by a conspiracy author, not McClelland.

The proof of where the head wound was is where Bowron packed in the gauze
squares. Look at the damn autopsy photo. Front of the head just above the
forehead.

[mainframetech]

You wish dearly that you had been able to reduce the numbers of the
"list", but you haven't done more than 1. Claiming otherwise won't get
you anywhere...:) I'll be there to correct you. I've proven that the
sloppy research was shown in the silly list you tried to foist on
everyone, with all the witnesses saying (for the most part) the same thing
as mine, just using different words.

As to names of the 65 witnesses, start with the 39 in the 'list of over
40+', and then read the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report, where they name
many of the people in the gallery who are the other 26.

Chris

[HONOR flight 93]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

Do you think the "Nova" show managers and workers were 100% honest?

Taking into account the evidence in US gov custody; In the following
computer-aided drawings that "Nova" show managers and workers planned-out
well ahead of time, created, then they decided to include the final-draft
CAD's in its show, where did "Nova" deliberately draw its first-impacting
bullet:

- entering JFK's shirt?

- entering JFK's suit coat?

- entering JFK's skin?

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2h55rva.jpg

[bigdog]

Your list was already bloated with people who don't belong on it as others
have pointed out and then you added 26 more people and you can't quote a
single one of them who said there was a blowout in the back of the head or
that the autopsy photos don't reflect what they saw. You think it suffices
to quote another conspiracy hobbyist who has made the same bogus claim you
have. You are both making up crap.

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 1:59:28 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
> - show quoted text -

> Read it again. You've made an error, as usual! First, we're not in
> court, so your comment about hearsay has no bearing on anything. Folks
> can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. The LNs often
> use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.
>
> And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
> this into a monster...:)
>
> Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
> hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
> altered. The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
> hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
> people that would agree with them.
>
> Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.
>
> Chris
>
>
>

> The Parkland doctors stated that the autopsy photos and X-rays reflected
> what they saw in Trauma Room One. These statements were recorded, and they
> shoot down your silly theory of body/photo/X-Ray alteration.
>


Where are those statements?

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rHTYgpTxsI0

[claviger]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 9:34:45 PM UTC-5, HONOR flight 93 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > NOVA | Cold Case JFK - PBS
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html
> > Fifty years later, what can science tell us about the Kennedy assassination--and
> > the investigations that followed? The 1963 murder, in broad daylight in front of ...
>
> Do you think the "Nova" show managers and workers were 100% honest?

You tell me. NOVA is headquartered in Boston. It doesn't get more pro
Kennedy than that. Second place would be Washington DC area where PBS is
located.

Nova (stylized NOVΛ) is a United States popular science television
series produced by WGBH Boston. It is broadcast on Public Broadcasting
Service (PBS) in the U.S., and in more than 100 other countries.[1] The
series has won many major television awards.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_%28TV_series%29

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster
and television program distributor. Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia,
PBS is an independently operated non-profit organization and is the most
prominent provider of television programs to public television stations in
the United States, distributing series such as NOVA, Sesame Street, PBS
NewsHour, Masterpiece, Nature, American Masters, Frontline, and Antiques
Roadshow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS

> Taking into account the evidence in US gov custody; In the following
> computer-aided drawings that "Nova" show managers and workers planned-out
> well ahead of time, created, then they decided to include the final-draft
> CAD's in its show, where did "Nova" deliberately draw its first-impacting
> bullet:
>
> - entering JFK's shirt?
>
> - entering JFK's suit coat?
>
> - entering JFK's skin?
>
> http://oi60.tinypic.com/2h55rva.jpg

Have you contacted them? Could be the graphic technicians are young
people not nearly as knowledgeable about the case as you.

[mainframetech]

It's a simulation, so it can't be depended on. They show whatever the
designer wants to show. It's like the Ida Dox drawing of the BOH of JFK
with a bullet hole in it. Except the original photo doesn't have the
bullet hole. Very humorous...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Unknown. Anyway it's a deliberate hoax.
BTW, don't rely on image sites like Tinypics.
Get a real web page.
I assume your first question was rhetorical.
Don't you suspect that they got it from Dale Myers?

[mainframetech]

I see no proof of anything in that post.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Apparently you got your links mixed up. I went to that link but it has
nothing to do with the JFK murder. Try again.

Just a thought. The Parkland doctors saw how the body looked before it
left Parkland hospital, and Nurse Diana Bowron was the last staff person
to see the body and prepare it for the ride to Bethesda. The condition of
the body would be very different than what people saw at the autopsy,
after the body damage was done by Humes and Boswell.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Recently, the only person that has tried to reduce the list in numbers
was Claviger, and he was successful only for one name! I have removed the
duplicate name he found, and that left the 39, and every single one of
them has been proven over the efforts of Claviger. He whines that he
removed many more names, but he did NOT. I proved every one that he
picked at. The list stays at 65. You're welcome to pick at it too, but
it has withstood many attacks with little change.

Let me know if you want to take a swat at it...:)


It is interesting that you have taken a swat at The other researcher,
who has shown good results, which I know draws your negative attacks to
try and balance the damage these researchers do to your precious WCR.
The researcher has a good reputation, which I suppose you'll try to
pretend is not so good, but I don't see that happening. The data stands.
And if you're so bothered by the lack of a list for the gallery people,
I'll go and copy the Sibert/O'Neill report list for you, to stop the
incessant noise.

Here's the list from Sibert and O'Neill, the only thing you found to
pick at that had any solidity:


Adm. C. B. HOLLOWAY, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer of the U. S. Naval
Medical Center, Bethesda;
Adm. BERKLEY, U. S. Navy, the President's personal physician;
Capt. JAMES H. STONER, JR., Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School,
Bethesda;
LLOYD E. RAIHE;
J. G. RUDNICKI;
Lt. Cmdr. GREGG CROSS
Captain DAVID OSBORNE, Chief of Surgery
Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U. S. Military District,
Washington, D.C.
AMC CHESTER H. BOYERS, U. S. Navy, visited the autopsy room during the final
stages of such to type receipts given by FBI and Secret Service for items
obtained.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- hide quoted text -

I just checked the link, and it is a vid of Parkland doctors talking about
the autopsy photos and x-rays. I don't know what to tell you. Here it is
again.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rHTYgpTxsI0

[Anthony Marsh]

Yup. It just points to a general page.
What sometimes happens is that someone finds a video on Youtube and
wants to cut and paste the URL, but by the time he remembers to look
back at his browser YouTube has already started showing a different clip.

> Just a thought. The Parkland doctors saw how the body looked before it
> left Parkland hospital, and Nurse Diana Bowron was the last staff person
> to see the body and prepare it for the ride to Bethesda. The condition of
> the body would be very different than what people saw at the autopsy,
> after the body damage was done by Humes and Boswell.
>
> Chris
>
>
> I just checked the link, and it is a vid of Parkland doctors talking about
> the autopsy photos and x-rays. I don't know what to tell you. Here it is
> again.
>
> https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rHTYgpTxsI0
>
>

Still wrong. Maybe that link expired. Is this the one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo

[bigdog]

We already know you don't care much about your credibility. If you want to
claim 26 people said what they saw at autopsy doesn't agree with the
autopsy photos even though you can't quote a single one of them who said
that, nobody can stop you from doing it. It's a free country and you have
a right to be wrong, a right you exercise numerous times a day. Just don't
expect anyone to take your silly claims seriously when you can't back them
up.

>
> It is interesting that you have taken a swat at The other researcher,
> who has shown good results,

By good results you mean people who make the same silly arguments you do.

> which I know draws your negative attacks to
> try and balance the damage these researchers do to your precious WCR.
> The researcher has a good reputation,

I'm sure he does with other conspiracy hobbyists.

> which I suppose you'll try to
> pretend is not so good, but I don't see that happening. The data stands.
> And if you're so bothered by the lack of a list for the gallery people,
> I'll go and copy the Sibert/O'Neill report list for you, to stop the
> incessant noise.
>

Try to stay focused. We are talking about the validity of the claim the 26
autopsy observers said what they saw conflicts with the autopsy photos.
Can you cite a single one who said that. Didn't think so. You just took
Mantik's word for it. You researched the hell out of that one, didn't you?

> Here's the list from Sibert and O'Neill, the only thing you found to
> pick at that had any solidity:
>
>
> Adm. C. B. HOLLOWAY, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer of the U. S. Naval
> Medical Center, Bethesda;
> Adm. BERKLEY, U. S. Navy, the President's personal physician;
> Capt. JAMES H. STONER, JR., Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School,
> Bethesda;
> LLOYD E. RAIHE;
> J. G. RUDNICKI;
> Lt. Cmdr. GREGG CROSS
> Captain DAVID OSBORNE, Chief of Surgery
> Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U. S. Military District,
> Washington, D.C.
> AMC CHESTER H. BOYERS, U. S. Navy, visited the autopsy room during the final
> stages of such to type receipts given by FBI and Secret Service for items
> obtained.
>

I can understand why you want to divert attention away from the 26 gallery
observers of the autopsy because you made a claim about them which you
cannot support. You just saw the number 26 and figured if you added them
to your bogus list it would make it seem more credible. It didn't work.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That link takes me to a page with a lot of different videos.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2015 5:25 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 9:34:45 PM UTC-5, HONOR flight 93 wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> NOVA | Cold Case JFK - PBS
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html
>>> Fifty years later, what can science tell us about the Kennedy assassination--and
>>> the investigations that followed? The 1963 murder, in broad daylight in front of ...
>>
>> Do you think the "Nova" show managers and workers were 100% honest?
>
> You tell me. NOVA is headquartered in Boston. It doesn't get more pro
> Kennedy than that. Second place would be Washington DC area where PBS is
> located.
>

> Nova (stylized NOV??) is a United States popular science television

> series produced by WGBH Boston. It is broadcast on Public Broadcasting
> Service (PBS) in the U.S., and in more than 100 other countries.[1] The
> series has won many major television awards.[2]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_%28TV_series%29
>
> The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster
> and television program distributor. Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia,
> PBS is an independently operated non-profit organization and is the most
> prominent provider of television programs to public television stations in
> the United States, distributing series such as NOVA, Sesame Street, PBS
> NewsHour, Masterpiece, Nature, American Masters, Frontline, and Antiques
> Roadshow.
>

As if YOU would ever watch PBS. Next time you watch some science show on
PBS look at the credits where is says Funding by David H. Koch.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
> More PBS conflict woes as activists move to eject David Koch from board of ???NOVA??? station

sirotabio By David Sirota
On March 3, 2014

koch_pbs

Last month, Pando???s ???Wolf of Sesame Street??? investigation broke the
news that one of PBS???s flagship outlets had inked a secret deal with
anti-pension billionaire John Arnold. That deal, which was not explicitly
disclosed to viewers, was designed to broadcast anti-pension programming
on public television stations throughout the country.

The story spotlighted how ideological billionaires and powerful
corporations are increasingly ??? and stealthily ??? attempting to launder
their political agendas through the trusted public-television brand,
potentially in violation of PBS???s own rules.

Now, as part of our continuing investigation into who funds public
television, Pando has learned that a new campaign is being launched
against another major PBS station, once again over the issue of
billionaire influence.

The campaign, sponsored by the environmental group Forecast the Facts,
aims to remove one of the most influential and politically active fossil
fuel magnates from the board of the PBS station that provides
science-related programming to outlets across the US.

The campaign???s target is David Koch, who serves on the board and the
Science Visiting Council of Boston???s WGBH. These are particularly
powerful posts for the conservative financier ??? one of the infamous Koch
brothers ??? because, like the Arnold-infiltrated WNET in New York, the
Boston station produces many of the national PBS network???s programming.
In fact, according to its own website, WGBH is ???PBS???s single largest
producer of Web and TV content.??? That includes PBS???s iconic science
show, NOVA.

Pando has learned that along with online ads and a new website, Forecast
the Facts??? campaign plans to unveil a prominent billboard right outside
of WGBH???s offices, demanding Koch???s removal. The new ad campaign is
being launched following protests outside the WGBH offices and a petition
signed by tens of thousands of viewers that calls for Koch to be ousted.

Koch???s role at WGBH may conflict with PBS???s own rules prohibiting
editorial control and funding from donors who have a political or
financial interest in the PBS they oversee. In this case, Koch is on the
board of the station that produces PBS science content. He has also funded
some of that content. Yet, he owns a fossil fuel conglomerate and has
bankrolled the fossil fuel industry???s campaign to deny climate change.

Citing estimates from Greenpeace, Forecast the Facts claims ???that David
Koch and his brother have donated over $67 million to climate denial front
groups dedicated to misleading the public on climate change since 1997.???
Additionally, according to American University???s Investigative Reporting
Workshop, ???A quarter of U.S. senators and more than one-third of
representatives have signed a little-known pledge ??? backed by the Kochs
??? not to spend any money to fight climate change without an equivalent
amount of tax cuts.???

Allegations that Koch has exerted editorial control over PBS

Given WGBH???s role in producing NOVA and so much other public television
content, Koch???s ownership of a fossil fuel conglomerate and his
attendant climate-change-related activism is directly relevant to his
leadership position at the station. Koch???s position at WGBH is also
significant because of fears that his past presence in leadership
positions in public television has already shaped public broadcasting
content.

For instance, as Pando already reported, Koch???s previous perch on
WNET???s board put him in a position to append his own political message
to the end of a documentary on income inequality by Academy Award winner
Alex Gibney. The New Yorker noted that a planned documentary scrutinizing
Koch???s political activism was subsequently killed by that same PBS
affiliate station.

Additionally, in 2009, reporter Matthew Yglesias noted that through
underwriting a NOVA series on evolution, ???Koch the Global Warming
Crank??? may have used his influence to conclude the series ???with an
oddly upbeat description of the positive role cataclysmic shifts in
climate have played in human history.??? That NOVA segment drew a rebuke
from the PBS Ombudsman, who said it ???does raise questions in my mind
about the internal decision-making process at NOVA and whether
conflict-of-interest or perception issues among viewers were
considered.???

Is WGBH ignoring PBS rules to appease Koch?

In its rules barring commercial interests from shaping its programming,
PBS promises to ???carefully analyze the relationship of the funder and
its business interests to the subject matter of the program.???

PBS also declares that a ???perception test will be applied most
vigorously to current affairs programs and programs that address
controversial issues.??? In such cases, PBS says that ???when there exists
a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or
services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the
proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable.???

Yet, even though Koch Industries??? fossil fuel business means the company
has an economic stake in downplaying climate change, and even though Koch
has financially supported the climate change denialism movement, the PBS
Ombudsman reports that David Koch has been permitted to provide ???roughly
2-3% of NOVA???s overall budget.??? He has also been permitted to remain
on WGBH???s board and its Science Visiting Council.

Pressure mounting on WGBH

In response to earlier pressure, WGBH officials have insisted they will
not remove Koch from the board. That has increased tensions between the
station and it???s viewers.

Last month, facing planned protests at the WGBH board meeting, station
officials appeared to ignore open-meeting requirements by not publicly
disclosing when the board meeting was taking place. There were also
allegations that WGBH officials deliberately gave protesters the wrong
meeting date information when they telephoned the station demanding
schedule information. WGBH denied those allegations, but in emails
obtained by Pando, A WGBH official admitted the station did not post the
board meeting schedule on its website.

???Keeping a fossil fuel baron like David Koch on the WGBH Board is like
keeping a tobacco executive on the board of the Cancer Society,??? said
Emily Southard, campaign manager at Forecast the Facts. ???By dedicating
his life and fortune to mislead the public on climate change, David Koch
is violating his duties as WGBH board member to foster a more informed
public.???

[mainframetech]

When I go to the link the screen is full of various current daty music
selections, Taylor Swift, etc. Yet at the top is the same id number:

https://www.youtube.com/?app=desktop#/watch?v=rHTYgpTxsI0


To try to go forward, the information I have is that the NOVA people
lied to make a better story. If not 'lied', then twisted their words
somewhat to give a different impression. I got that from 2 different
researchers. The most recent was:

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

- show quoted text -

Yup. It just points to a general page.
What sometimes happens is that someone finds a video on Youtube and
wants to cut and paste the URL, but by the time he remembers to look
back at his browser YouTube has already started showing a different clip.

> Just a thought. The Parkland doctors saw how the body looked before it
> left Parkland hospital, and Nurse Diana Bowron was the last staff person
> to see the body and prepare it for the ride to Bethesda. The condition of
> the body would be very different than what people saw at the autopsy,
> after the body damage was done by Humes and Boswell.
>
> Chris
>
>
> I just checked the link, and it is a vid of Parkland doctors talking about
> the autopsy photos and x-rays. I don't know what to tell you. Here it is
> again.
>
> https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rHTYgpTxsI0
>
>


Still wrong. Maybe that link expired. Is this the one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo

I think the problem is that I am posting from a mobile device, and the
YouTube addresses are different than for a PC.

Go to YouTube and search for "JFK Parkland Doctors Confirm Autopsy
Photos". That should do the trick.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I don't "claim" things. I make statements, which you're welcome
to try and disprove. In this case I didn't make the statement, but simply
repeated it from a known researcher, which you're not.

Listening to your rant, it would seem that you decided to speak for
everyone else here. And I have backed up the statement already by copying
it here and naming the author. Something you rarely do. The statement
can be checked, and the context can be checked. Also, we're not in doubt,
and you officious attitude isn't needed here. Are you going to try and
pretend that you NEVER have quoted someone who was a researcher?

> >
> > It is interesting that you have taken a swat at The other researcher,
> > who has shown good results,
>
> By good results you mean people who make the same silly arguments you do.
>

Nope, by showing results that silly people find no reason to pick at,
for lack of any other way to keep others from listening to it.

> > which I know draws your negative attacks to
> > try and balance the damage these researchers do to your precious WCR.
> > The researcher has a good reputation,
>
> I'm sure he does with other conspiracy hobbyists.
>

Any good researcher has a bad reputation with the LN kooks out there
who trash anyone that shows proof of the messy WCR and it's founders.
It's a sign of quality reporting. I've told you this before. Your whines
and complaints are a sure sign that something or someone should be looked
into.

> > which I suppose you'll try to
> > pretend is not so good, but I don't see that happening. The data stands.
> > And if you're so bothered by the lack of a list for the gallery people,
> > I'll go and copy the Sibert/O'Neill report list for you, to stop the
> > incessant noise.
> >
>
> Try to stay focused. We are talking about the validity of the claim the 26
> autopsy observers said what they saw conflicts with the autopsy photos.
> Can you cite a single one who said that. Didn't think so. You just took
> Mantik's word for it. You researched the hell out of that one, didn't you?
>

Well, of course I can name some of those from the gallery. See below.

> > Here's the list from Sibert and O'Neill, the only thing you found to
> > pick at that had any solidity:
> >
> >
> > Adm. C. B. HOLLOWAY, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer of the U. S. Naval
> > Medical Center, Bethesda;
> > Adm. BERKLEY, U. S. Navy, the President's personal physician;
> > Capt. JAMES H. STONER, JR., Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School,
> > Bethesda;
> > LLOYD E. RAIHE;
> > J. G. RUDNICKI;
> > Lt. Cmdr. GREGG CROSS
> > Captain DAVID OSBORNE, Chief of Surgery
> > Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U. S. Military District,
> > Washington, D.C.
> > AMC CHESTER H. BOYERS, U. S. Navy, visited the autopsy room during the final
> > stages of such to type receipts given by FBI and Secret Service for items
> > obtained.
> >
>
> I can understand why you want to divert attention away from the 26 gallery
> observers of the autopsy because you made a claim about them which you
> cannot support. You just saw the number 26 and figured if you added them
> to your bogus list it would make it seem more credible. It didn't work.

I haven't done any such thing. I've presented the names I knew. Your
incessant complaints sometimes get you what you want from me. Talk about
lucky! And the statement (not "claim") stands and was backed up. If
you've lost the backup that I put out, tough! You should have copied it
down.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you click on the link that erases your hard drive?

[bigdog]

Repeating someone else's bullshit doesn't give either of you credibility.
Contrary to what you say, your statement's are claims and ones you cannot
support. You try to pull this stunt all the time. You make a claim and you
insist if the claim cannot be disproven then it should be accepted as a
fact. This is the bassackards way of doing it. The correct way is when you
make a claim, you provide the proof for that claim. Otherwise it is
completely baseless as it is in this case.

> Listening to your rant, it would seem that you decided to speak for
> everyone else here. And I have backed up the statement already by copying
> it here and naming the author.

You named the source of your bullshit. BFD. He has made an unsupported
claim and you are swearing to it.

> Something you rarely do. The statement
> can be checked, and the context can be checked.

They why don't you do that and cite just one of those 26 observers who
said the autopsy photos don't square with what they saw at the autopsy.
Just one. Why can't you do that?

> Also, we're not in doubt,
> and you officious attitude isn't needed here. Are you going to try and
> pretend that you NEVER have quoted someone who was a researcher?
>

I don't make a habit of quoting researchers who can't document their
claims even if I believe what it is they are claiming.

>
>
> > >
> > > It is interesting that you have taken a swat at The other researcher,
> > > who has shown good results,
> >
> > By good results you mean people who make the same silly arguments you do.
> >
>
>
> Nope, by showing results that silly people find no reason to pick at,
> for lack of any other way to keep others from listening to it.
>

No reason? Someone claims that 26 observers said that the autopsy photos
don't look like what they saw at the autopsy and yet he doesn't cite a
single one saying that and you don't thing that is a reason to "pick at"
it. I could just as easily say all 26 vouched for the authenticity of the
photos and I would have as much to back me up as he does.

>
>
> > > which I know draws your negative attacks to
> > > try and balance the damage these researchers do to your precious WCR.
> > > The researcher has a good reputation,
> >
> > I'm sure he does with other conspiracy hobbyists.
> >
>
> Any good researcher has a bad reputation with the LN kooks out there
> who trash anyone that shows proof of the messy WCR and it's founders.
> It's a sign of quality reporting. I've told you this before. Your whines
> and complaints are a sure sign that something or someone should be looked
> into.
>

If he was a good researcher he could back up his claims with actual
quotes. Why doesn't he do that.

>
>
> > > which I suppose you'll try to
> > > pretend is not so good, but I don't see that happening. The data stands.
> > > And if you're so bothered by the lack of a list for the gallery people,
> > > I'll go and copy the Sibert/O'Neill report list for you, to stop the
> > > incessant noise.
> > >
> >
> > Try to stay focused. We are talking about the validity of the claim the 26
> > autopsy observers said what they saw conflicts with the autopsy photos.
> > Can you cite a single one who said that. Didn't think so. You just took
> > Mantik's word for it. You researched the hell out of that one, didn't you?
> >
>
>
> Well, of course I can name some of those from the gallery. See below.
>

I'm not asking you to name them. I am asking you to quote them. Their
words. Not Mantik's claims of what they said.

>
>
> > > Here's the list from Sibert and O'Neill, the only thing you found to
> > > pick at that had any solidity:
> > >
> > >
> > > Adm. C. B. HOLLOWAY, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer of the U. S. Naval
> > > Medical Center, Bethesda;
> > > Adm. BERKLEY, U. S. Navy, the President's personal physician;
> > > Capt. JAMES H. STONER, JR., Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School,
> > > Bethesda;
> > > LLOYD E. RAIHE;
> > > J. G. RUDNICKI;
> > > Lt. Cmdr. GREGG CROSS
> > > Captain DAVID OSBORNE, Chief of Surgery
> > > Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U. S. Military District,
> > > Washington, D.C.
> > > AMC CHESTER H. BOYERS, U. S. Navy, visited the autopsy room during the final
> > > stages of such to type receipts given by FBI and Secret Service for items
> > > obtained.
> > >
> >
> > I can understand why you want to divert attention away from the 26 gallery
> > observers of the autopsy because you made a claim about them which you
> > cannot support. You just saw the number 26 and figured if you added them
> > to your bogus list it would make it seem more credible. It didn't work.
>
>
> I haven't done any such thing. I've presented the names I knew.

Names don't mean a damn thing. It's what they said that matters and you
can't tell us what they said. You simply accept Mantik's claim of what
they said.

> Your
> incessant complaints sometimes get you what you want from me. Talk about
> lucky! And the statement (not "claim") stands and was backed up.

Until you provide quotes you haven't backed up anything. You have just
repeated someone else's line of bullshit.

> If
> you've lost the backup that I put out, tough! You should have copied it
> down.
>

You've NEVER quoted a single one of those 26 people. If you are going to
claim these people said something that supports your position, it's the
least you could do.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/5/2015 8:56 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

The tip-off is the "//m." which tells you it's from a cellphone.

[claviger]

Very interesting example you provided about political correctness and how
to silence political free speech, but no mention of Koch having anything
to do with PBS programs on the Kennedy Assassination. Why would he? His
focus seems to be the ongoing worldwide fossil fuel debate. There are 27
members of the PBS Board of Directors. Part of the duty of any BOD member
is to observe other members and insure they follow the rules. You have
failed to make any connection of Koch to PBS programming on the Kennedy
assassination. Innuendo is one of your favorite tactics but in this case
you come up empty. Just because you hate someone does not mean they had
anything to do with the Kennedy Assassination.

Koch's name does not appear on this list.
http://www.pbs.org/about/leadership/board/

PBS | Ombudsman | David Koch and PBS: The Odd Couple
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2013/05/david_koch_and_pbs_the_odd_couple.html

[mainframetech]

Speaking of 'bullshit', and there it is. In effect you're saying that
no one can use any statement as back up since if it's from a third party,
it's bullshit. Well, that won't do. You aren't the last word in deciding
what is or is not a good report. Folks here will go on making statements
and backing them up by showing where they got the statement. There is
rarely a way to directly prove the absolute truth of most statements in a
case like this. When the source is given the listener can decided if they
want to argue it or not. Your ridiculous idea isn't of use to the way
things have been done for a good while.


And your "claim" that "the claim cannot be disproven then it should be
accepted as a fact" is not quite true. I will accept most statements from
witnesses, since most people try to tell the truth when asked a question,
or when explaining an event they saw or heard. That fact is a good base
for acceptance. If it later proves to be false, then that's a strike
against the witness, like with Humes who lied on a few occasions, or made
up facts. As with anything said, the proof of it is the arguments over a
statement that others provide here. Similar to an adversarial procedure
in court. The way to truth is often through debate.

> > Listening to your rant, it would seem that you decided to speak for
> > everyone else here. And I have backed up the statement already by copying
> > it here and naming the author.
>
> You named the source of your bullshit. BFD. He has made an unsupported
> claim and you are swearing to it.
>

His support is his reputation. As with anything YOU say, we have to
consider the source, and then decide if your crapping on us yet again.
That's no different. So give up the crap and get back to the way business
is done here. Making up your own rules at this late ate just to try to
win a point is foolish. I supply the source, in this case a book, as so
many have done here for ages. Then you or others decided if you want to
argue that, and bring up whatever proof you can to disprove something
said. So get with it. If you've got a complaint about the author of the
piece that I quoted, spit it out and stop trying to make a big hairy thing
out of yourself.

> > Something you rarely do. The statement
> > can be checked, and the context can be checked.
>
> They why don't you do that and cite just one of those 26 observers who
> said the autopsy photos don't square with what they saw at the autopsy.
> Just one. Why can't you do that?
>

Because in the cite they weren't named individually. And why do you
keep harping on it, when you know very well what the situation is?
Because you've got nothing else to pick at, so you have to go with the
easiest. You have admitted that there was a 'large hole' at the BOH of
JFK. You think it was larger than it was leaving Parkland, and I think it
was enlarged at Bethesda by Hums and Boswell, but either way we agree with
all these people, so what's your problem with the list of those that saw
that fact that you have admitted?

> > Also, we're not in doubt,

> > and your officious attitude isn't needed here. Are you going to try and

> > pretend that you NEVER have quoted someone who was a researcher?
> >
>
> I don't make a habit of quoting researchers who can't document their
> claims even if I believe what it is they are claiming.
>

Time will tell.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > It is interesting that you have taken a swat at The other researcher,
> > > > who has shown good results,
> > >
> > > By good results you mean people who make the same silly arguments you do.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, by showing results that silly people find no reason to pick at,
> > for lack of any other way to keep others from listening to it.
> >
>
> No reason? Someone claims that 26 observers said that the autopsy photos
> don't look like what they saw at the autopsy and yet he doesn't cite a
> single one saying that and you don't thing that is a reason to "pick at"
> it. I could just as easily say all 26 vouched for the authenticity of the
> photos and I would have as much to back me up as he does.
>

Oh, I think it's a reason to pick at it, I just don't think you're
picking at it for a legitimate reason to get at the truth. Since you have
already admitted to the 'large hole' being at the BOH, the gallery is
simply going along with your belief. A statement that they had been
checked and found that the HSCA was lying was perfectly reasonable way to
say what happened, without naming every person there, though I've given
you a list of SOME of them.

> >
> >
> > > > which I know draws your negative attacks to
> > > > try and balance the damage these researchers do to your precious WCR.
> > > > The researcher has a good reputation,
> > >
> > > I'm sure he does with other conspiracy hobbyists.
> > >
> >
> > Any good researcher has a bad reputation with the LN kooks out there
> > who trash anyone that shows proof of the messy WCR and it's founders.
> > It's a sign of quality reporting. I've told you this before. Your whines
> > and complaints are a sure sign that something or someone should be looked
> > into.
> >
>
> If he was a good researcher he could back up his claims with actual
> quotes. Why doesn't he do that.
>

So all evidence has to be presented on a silver platter of YOUR design?
Naah. You don't carry the moxie to make than demand. The way evidence or
quotes are presented will continue as it has for a good while, and if
you've got a complaint, you make it known a reasonable fashion and argue
it like everyone else.

> >
> >
> > > > which I suppose you'll try to
> > > > pretend is not so good, but I don't see that happening. The data stands.
> > > > And if you're so bothered by the lack of a list for the gallery people,
> > > > I'll go and copy the Sibert/O'Neill report list for you, to stop the
> > > > incessant noise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Try to stay focused. We are talking about the validity of the claim the 26
> > > autopsy observers said what they saw conflicts with the autopsy photos.
> > > Can you cite a single one who said that. Didn't think so. You just took
> > > Mantik's word for it. You researched the hell out of that one, didn't you?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, of course I can name some of those from the gallery. See below.
> >
>
> I'm not asking you to name them. I am asking you to quote them. Their
> words. Not Mantik's claims of what they said.
>

The evidence wasn't presented that way, and you don't decide the form
that evidence arrives in. Take what you get and make your whines to the
complaint dept. and see how you do, like everyone else. You're not a
special case.

> >
> >
> > > > Here's the list from Sibert and O'Neill, the only thing you found to
> > > > pick at that had any solidity:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Adm. C. B. HOLLOWAY, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer of the U. S. Naval
> > > > Medical Center, Bethesda;
> > > > Adm. BERKLEY, U. S. Navy, the President's personal physician;
> > > > Capt. JAMES H. STONER, JR., Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School,
> > > > Bethesda;
> > > > LLOYD E. RAIHE;
> > > > J. G. RUDNICKI;
> > > > Lt. Cmdr. GREGG CROSS
> > > > Captain DAVID OSBORNE, Chief of Surgery
> > > > Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U. S. Military District,
> > > > Washington, D.C.
> > > > AMC CHESTER H. BOYERS, U. S. Navy, visited the autopsy room during the final
> > > > stages of such to type receipts given by FBI and Secret Service for items
> > > > obtained.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can understand why you want to divert attention away from the 26 gallery
> > > observers of the autopsy because you made a claim about them which you
> > > cannot support. You just saw the number 26 and figured if you added them
> > > to your bogus list it would make it seem more credible. It didn't work.
> >
> >
> > I haven't done any such thing. I've presented the names I knew.
>
> Names don't mean a damn thing. It's what they said that matters and you
> can't tell us what they said. You simply accept Mantik's claim of what
> they said.
>

I repeat...YOU do NOT decide the form that evidence is presented in.
If you don't like something, you can argue it like everyone else, but I'm
not here to cater to your odd needs. Just get along and make your
argument and at the end decide what you will or won't believe. You may
even have the option of not hearing anything I say if you make the right
settings.

> > Your
> > incessant complaints sometimes get you what you want from me. Talk about
> > lucky! And the statement (not "claim") stands and was backed up.
>
> Until you provide quotes you haven't backed up anything. You have just
> repeated someone else's line of bullshit.
>

Then it seems that you need to prove that the source provided
"bullshit". So where's your argument? All I've heard so far is whines
that info wasn't presented to you on a silver platter just the way you
like it. Take it and argue it, or leave it and forget it.

> > If
> > you've lost the backup that I put out, tough! You should have copied it
> > down.
> >
>
> You've NEVER quoted a single one of those 26 people. If you are going to
> claim these people said something that supports your position, it's the
> least you could do.

Blah, Blah, Blah! Same old complaint. We're done with that. Don't
you get it?

Chris

[mainframetech]

I was able to see a video of a few doctors saying that the photos
described what they saw in the ER. I can only guess at the date of that
event. And the only thing I can think that may have casued them to think
that what they saw was like what was in the ER is that they were fooled by
the altered photos. That they thought that they were seeing the latest
photos that were MOT altered, and so they believed they had been mistaken.
Why would they think that the US government would alter autopsy photos?
So they would be believers.

It's still clear that the over 39+ witnesses to the BOH 'large hole'
was there, meaning that the photo showing the BOH was altered. There's no
way that it the photo of Boswell pulling a scalp 'flap' forward over the
huge defect that was described by Humes and Boswell that went from the BOH
around to the right side and to part of the top. If that had been true,
then the BOH photo would have a big depression in it for that huge hole.
The photo was altered and some people still think there never was a 'large
hole' back there, which shows how believable a photo is.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

- show quoted text -

I was able to see a video of a few doctors saying that the photos
described what they saw in the ER. I can only guess at the date of that
event. And the only thing I can think that may have casued them to think
that what they saw was like what was in the ER is that they were fooled by
the altered photos. That they thought that they were seeing the latest
photos that were MOT altered, and so they believed they had been mistaken.
Why would they think that the US government would alter autopsy photos?
So they would be believers.

It's still clear that the over 39+ witnesses to the BOH 'large hole'
was there, meaning that the photo showing the BOH was altered. There's no
way that it the photo of Boswell pulling a scalp 'flap' forward over the
huge defect that was described by Humes and Boswell that went from the BOH
around to the right side and to part of the top. If that had been true,
then the BOH photo would have a big depression in it for that huge hole.
The photo was altered and some people still think there never was a 'large
hole' back there, which shows how believable a photo is.

Chris

The video is a clip from a NOVA program that first aired in the 1980s. The
doctors went to the National Archives and viewed the photos and X-rays
there.

My point is to debunk the claim that was made by the author you quoted in
your earlier post: ". . . all that these doctors had meant was that the

pictures they saw in the Archives were the same as the pictures that had
been publicly published."

That statement is clearly untrue. The doctors specifically said that the
photos and X-rays portrayed what they saw at Parkland. If you believe that
material had been altered, that is another matter. But you should not rely
on an author who obviously pulls things out of thin air.

[mainframetech]

I'll keep it in mind, but it's not the first time I've heard that. If I
could remember the other person that said it, I'd put the info out.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

That wasn't the question.
I never said Koch had anything to do with the JFK assassination.
You just like to make false charges.

[claviger]

It's clear your 39+ list is bogus. That list is now busted so start over
and try again, and this time keep in mind we all speak and read English.
Some of those witnesses were from the opposite side of the fence. Did you
really think we wouldn't notice?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you bother referencing the autopsy materials at all if you think
all the evidence is fake?

[mainframetech]

Your complaint is bogus. The list wasn't made to be on one or the other
side of any fence. They saw that the BOH had a 'large hole' and they said
so, so they go in the list. It's far superior to the list you put up,
with them all saying mainly the same thing as mine. That they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And further, you might want to check the
testimony of the prosectors, who ALL said there was a 'large hole' in the
BOH of JFK. Don't you feel embarrassed?

Chris

[claviger]

The basic question is where was the large avulsive wound located on the
head as determined by the autopsy conducted by three pathologists, one a
combat wound expert recently back from Vietnam.
________________________________________________________________________

Pierre Antoine Finck studied at the University of Geneva Medical School.
After graduating in 1948 he spent two years at the Institute of Pathology
in Geneva before moving to the United States where he continued his
studies at the University of Tennessee Medical School.

In 1955 Finck was drafted into the United States Army. He was sent to
Germany and became a pathologist at the U.S. Army hospital in Frankfurt.
In 1959 Finck was sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in
Washington. The following year he was appointed Chief of the Wound
Ballistics Pathology Branch of the institute.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfinck.htm
________________________________________________________________________

Finck was interviewed by the Warren Commission where he testified that he
believed Kennedy was "shot from the rear". He added "the bullet entered in
the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull." After
further questioning from Arlen Specter, Finck claimed that Kennedy had
been shot from behind and above.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfinck.htm
________________________________________________________________________

This US Army expert on lethal wounds concurred with autopsy description
of the head wound:

1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:

a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the
right ear to a point slightly above the tragus.

b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.

c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.

d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally.

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally
to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance
is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is
a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
skull.

Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding
from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
disruption of the superior saggital sinus.

Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen
to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller
wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the
longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production
of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10cm.
in greatest diameter.

http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
________________________________________________________________________


This is the opinion of the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch
of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC. His
signature on this document is significant in that he's putting his
professional reputation on the line, the equivalent of signing a contract
that everything is accurate based on his education, training, and
experience. By so doing Dr Finck is guaranteeing the accuracy of this
pathological examination.

If he lied or made a major fundamental mistake his career is damaged for
the rest of his life. LtCol Finck was there to double check some of the
basic measurements which he did. He then put his stamp of approval on
this document by signing his name indicating this was a correct medical
examination of the wounds on this victim, who happened to be his boss as
CIC of the US Army.

> They saw that the BOH had a 'large hole' and they said so, so they go in the > list.

What is the back of head? You assumed the occipital region as illustrated
in the so called McClelland sketch, not actually drawn by McClelland but
approved by him as an accurate representation of what he saw in TR1.

> It's far superior to the list you put up, with them all saying mainly the
> same thing as mine. That they saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.

That statement is more than just wishful thinking on your part, or perhaps a fantasy you indulge in to keep your daydream conspiracy in play.

> And further, you might want to check the testimony of the prosectors, who ALL > said there was a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.

If BOH is defined as anything behind the frontal bone defined by the
coronal suture then they are technically correct.* The parietal bone is in
back of the frontal bone and includes the apex, or vertex as Finck called
it, of the skull which simply means the top of the cranium.

That is not where the McClelland sketch positions the large head wound.
His location is below the cowlick spot on the head that curves down into
the occipital bone.

* The Visual Dictionary
http://www.infovisual.info/03/017_en.html

> Don't you feel embarrassed?

Only for you because your argument is so incredibly sophomoric. You had to invent an elaborate plot with a throw down bullet in ER and later an amazing transformation of two mediocre Navy pathologists who morph into brilliant plastic surgeons for 45 minutes by covering a gaping head wound in the very back of the head, while at the same time excavating another gaping hole on top of the head. Inexplicably nobody in authority whose job it was to pay close attention, noticed all these machinations.

You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.

Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.

As if that were not enough you claim by endorsement, a sniper fired 3 shots from the GK before any shots were heard from the TSBD. Terrible coordination if the idea was to frame the PLP in the window on the 6th floor. You also believe two dubious witnesses whose stories conflict rather than corroborate.

So yes your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Too many loose ends you don't know what to do with.

> Chris

[mainframetech]

I've backed up every part of what I have put out. And it comes mostly
from sworn testimony. So you're simply insulting those that swore to tell
the truth. They'll turn over in their graves. Since what I'm saying
comes from sworn testimony, it can't be from my imagination. Try arguing
that point for a change, or will you run away as you often do? Your
attempts to sound like you are on the inside of the police with your using
terms seen on TV cops and robbers, like 'throwdown' bullet in the "ER" is
ridiculous. I didn't make up the bullet in the ER (I assume you are
talking about the bullet on Connally's operating room. That came from
others, and has been around for years.

Now, let's look once again at your foolish comment about surgeons that
do plastic surgery. THERE WAS NO SURGEON DOING ANY PLASTIC SURGERY AT
BETHESDA THA NIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? WILL YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR MEMORUY
TO REMEMBER THAT?

As well, Humes and Boswell did NOT cover up any wound in the BOH of
JFK. They merely expanded it with scalpel and bone saw, as I've proved to
you with witnesses. Strange that you see the proof and go on by as if you
saw nothing. It was invisible to you. When they did that clandestine
work, there was no one around except the witnesses and later no one but
Humes and Boswell and Robinson.

> You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.
>

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD! THERE WAS NO HOLE FILLED IN THAT
NIGHT. THE HOLE IN THE BOH WAS EXPANDED TO GO AROUND THE SIDE AND SOME OF
THE TOP OF THE HEAD. NO PLASTIC SURGERY WAS DONE. And if you check the
descriptions from Parkland vs. the descriptions from Bethesda after the
clandestine work was done, you'll se it yourself. But your so sure of
your WCR info that you fail completely to look at new information and take
it into consideration. You're stuck in 1963!

> Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.
>

BULLSHIT! I've NEVER said anything like that! Where do you get these
weird ideas? I think some films were not modified because they didn't
show enough. But the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Don't
blame me for that, I didn't do it. There is a witness that said it, and
also independent analyses that show that the film was altered, and I'll be
you haven't had to courage to look at them.

> As if that were not enough you claim by endorsement, a sniper fired 3 shots from the GK before any shots were heard from the TSBD. Terrible coordination if the idea was to frame the PLP in the window on the 6th floor. You also believe two dubious witnesses whose stories conflict rather than corroborate.
>

You have gone right out of your mind! I have NEVER said that any
shooter fire 3 shots from the GK...not EVER! And who do you think I
endorsed that said such a dumb thing?

And who are the 2 witnesses that don't agree with each other? As usual,
for your little games, you fail miserably to name or link to anything
you're talking about, so I have no idea what's on your little mind.

> So yes your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Too many loose ends you don't know what to do with.
>

I's know a lot more what to do with your whole statement above, if you
gave the information to know what the hell you're talking about half the time!
And I'm NOT giving you "THEORIES". I'm giving you sworn testimony from
those that experienced the events spoken about.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said a bullet was thrown down and found in the ER? Which book was
that from?

[claviger]

As I've said before, just because a witness got it wrong doesn't mean they
are lying. They are just mistaken. No doubt they are sincere in
believing what they say.

> Your attempts to sound like you are on the inside of the police with your
> using terms seen on TV cops and robbers, like 'throwdown' bullet in the "ER" > is ridiculous.

"Throw down" is part of common lexicon. It means inserting a piece of
evidence at a crime scene that doesn't belong there. The hospital ER
isn't the crime scene per se, but close enough. One SSA claims he did
discover this bullet at the crime scene but moved it to ER. If true the
evidence is real not a throw down, but you are the one who claims TGC
placed the wrong kind of bullet in ER that has nothing to do with the
wounds on the President.

> I didn't make up the bullet in the ER (I assume you are talking about the
> bullet on Connally's operating room. That came from others, and has been
> around for years.

Yes, as a throw down pristine magic bullet. It was not pristine or magic.
This 6.5 military projectile with a thick copper jacket and high ballistic
coefficient had a reputation for rugged deep penetration of targets
without tumbling or disintegrating.

> Now, let's look once again at your foolish comment about surgeons that
> do plastic surgery. THERE WAS NO SURGEON DOING ANY PLASTIC SURGERY AT
> BETHESDA THA NIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? WILL YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR MEMORUY
> TO REMEMBER THAT?
>
> As well, Humes and Boswell did NOT cover up any wound in the BOH of
> JFK. They merely expanded it with scalpel and bone saw, as I've proved to
> you with witnesses.

You have proved nothing and now your explanation is even more ridiculous.
Look at the McClelland illustration that you accept as correct and imagine
extending it to the top of the skull. There would be nothing left of the
entire right side of the skull.

> Strange that you see the proof and go on by as if you
> saw nothing. It was invisible to you. When they did that clandestine
> work, there was no one around except the witnesses and later no one but
> Humes and Boswell and Robinson.

What proof? All I see is confusing speculation on your part.

> > You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.
>
>
> GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD! THERE WAS NO HOLE FILLED IN THAT
> NIGHT. THE HOLE IN THE BOH WAS EXPANDED TO GO AROUND THE SIDE AND SOME OF
> THE TOP OF THE HEAD. NO PLASTIC SURGERY WAS DONE. And if you check the
> descriptions from Parkland vs. the descriptions from Bethesda after the
> clandestine work was done, you'll se it yourself. But your so sure of
> your WCR info that you fail completely to look at new information and take
> it into consideration. You're stuck in 1963!

Yes I am stuck in 1963. You are trying to use modern technology and make
it 50 years retroactive. The McClelland drawing shows a huge wound in the
right occiput. To extend it across the parietal bone all the way to the
coronal suture means there is no support for the right side of the
cranium. This allegation is absurd. No photo or X-ray shows anything
like that.

> > Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.
> >
>
> BULLSHIT! I've NEVER said anything like that! Where do you get these
> weird ideas? I think some films were not modified because they didn't
> show enough. But the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Don't
> blame me for that, I didn't do it. There is a witness that said it, and
> also independent analyses that show that the film was altered, and I'll be
> you haven't had to courage to look at them.

The Zapruder film had more than one copy. When the Life Magazine copy was
damaged they used the other copies to fix it. How exactly do you think
the Z-film was altered? Have other films that corroborate the Z-film been
altered too?

> > As if that were not enough you claim by endorsement, a sniper fired 3 shots from the GK before any shots were heard from the TSBD. Terrible coordination if the idea was to frame the PLP in the window on the 6th floor. You also believe two dubious witnesses whose stories conflict rather than corroborate.
> >
>
> You have gone right out of your mind! I have NEVER said that any
> shooter fire 3 shots from the GK...not EVER! And who do you think I
> endorsed that said such a dumb thing?

The fact you ask this question speaks volumes. You obviously didn't read
the multiple versions of Gordon Arnold's evolving story. He said there
were two shots over his left shoulder "then a blend" so add 2 more shots.
All this before any shots were heard from the TSBD!

> And who are the 2 witnesses that don't agree with each other? As usual,
> for your little games, you fail miserably to name or link to anything
> you're talking about, so I have no idea what's on your little mind.

Arnold's tale does not match Hoffmans's story. You didn't notice before
now? Maybe it's time you pick one and lose the other. Actually neither
one makes sense so throw 'em both in the trashcan where they belong.

> > So yes your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Too many loose ends you don't know what to do with.
> >
>
> I's know a lot more what to do with your whole statement above, if you
> gave the information to know what the hell you're talking about half the time!

What's with the black Southern accent? Are you trying to mimic Hillary
Clinton?

> And I'm NOT giving you "THEORIES". I'm giving you sworn testimony from
> those that experienced the events spoken about.

There has been much sworn testimony from well meaning witnesses in this
case who were truthful about what they honestly thought they saw and
heard. Just because they got one or two details wrong doesn't mean they
were lying. Some of the best witnesses made a mistake on one or two
details. You need to put it all together in a holistic analysis to
understand the big picture.

[mainframetech]

No one has accused them of lying. Only of being wrong. Many witnesses
are straightforward in their statements, as I have often said. I've also
quoted many witnesses, and when they corroborate each other, then there is
almost NO chance of error. Such as the case of the many that have stated
that they saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.

> > Your attempts to sound like you are on the inside of the police with your
> > using terms seen on TV cops and robbers, like 'throwdown' bullet in the "ER" > is ridiculous.
>
> "Throw down" is part of common lexicon. It means inserting a piece of
> evidence at a crime scene that doesn't belong there. The hospital ER
> isn't the crime scene per se, but close enough. One SSA claims he did
> discover this bullet at the crime scene but moved it to ER. If true the
> evidence is real not a throw down, but you are the one who claims TGC
> placed the wrong kind of bullet in ER that has nothing to do with the
> wounds on the President.
>

Crime scene terminology isn't really all that common usage. Few use it
in normal conversation or debate. Detectives might use it though.

And as is often the case, you've got yourself mixed up again. I've
suggested that the bullet left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was a
standard bullet, of a type that most would recognize as a bullet. Later
when there was a need to go into the custody of bullets, the CE399 bullet
was no longer a standard bullet, it was an MC type bullet, and matched the
MC rifle. Proof that the bullet was replaced during its stay with the FBI
custodian. Identification of that bullet was refused by 4 men that had
handled the original bullet, 2 of which should have initialed it and
didn't for some odd reason.

> > I didn't make up the bullet in the ER (I assume you are talking about the
> > bullet on Connally's operating room. That came from others, and has been
> > around for years.
>
> Yes, as a throw down pristine magic bullet. It was not pristine or magic.
> This 6.5 military projectile with a thick copper jacket and high ballistic
> coefficient had a reputation for rugged deep penetration of targets
> without tumbling or disintegrating.
>

Nope, wrong. I was speaking of the bullet that dropped from a wound on
Connally and was picked up by a nurse and brought out of the surgery by
her.

The bullet that you're speaking of was the replacement bullet that was
originally left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland. And though it wasn't
"pristine", it was fairly undamaged compared to what was said to have ben
its history. That's the bullet that now matches a test bullet in the
bends and flattening and bit of material missing from the tail end, like a
test bullet. Here they are in a WC display:

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif

>
> > Now, let's look once again at your foolish comment about surgeons that
> > do plastic surgery. THERE WAS NO SURGEON DOING ANY PLASTIC SURGERY AT

> > BETHESDA THAT NIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? WILL YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR MEMORY

> > TO REMEMBER THAT?
> >
> > As well, Humes and Boswell did NOT cover up any wound in the BOH of
> > JFK. They merely expanded it with scalpel and bone saw, as I've proved to
> > you with witnesses.
>
> You have proved nothing and now your explanation is even more ridiculous.
> Look at the McClelland illustration that you accept as correct and imagine
> extending it to the top of the skull. There would be nothing left of the
> entire right side of the skull.
>

You're catching on now. Have you gone through the descriptions by Humes
and Boswell of the head AT the autopsy? By comparison to what the head
looked like at Parkland, it was a humongous difference. And the ONLY opportunity
there was to make those changes in the head was at 6:35pm when the body
arrived early BEFORE the autopsy and Humes and Boswell were seen working
on the head with scalpel and bone saw during their 'clandestine' 'surgery'.

They gave away that they did 'clandestine' work on the body with
comments made by Humes at the autopsy, particularly when he made the
comment that the brain 'fell out into his hands', which it couldn't do
unless the brain stem and optic nerves had been cut previously. As well,
the major arteries and veins also were cut in advance of the autopsy at
8:00pm.

> > Strange that you see the proof and go on by as if you
> > saw nothing. It was invisible to you. When they did that clandestine
> > work, there was no one around except the witnesses and later no one but
> > Humes and Boswell and Robinson.
>
> What proof? All I see is confusing speculation on your part.
>

Really weird. I've put out the actual testimony of the people that
witnessed the clandestine surgery that the FBI agents saw, and now you
can't remember any of it. I do believe that you have an odd memory that
only takes in what it wants and ignores anything that isn't in the WCR.

> > > You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.
> >
> >
> > GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD! THERE WAS NO HOLE FILLED IN THAT
> > NIGHT. THE HOLE IN THE BOH WAS EXPANDED TO GO AROUND THE SIDE AND SOME OF
> > THE TOP OF THE HEAD. NO PLASTIC SURGERY WAS DONE. And if you check the
> > descriptions from Parkland vs. the descriptions from Bethesda after the

> > clandestine work was done, you'll see it yourself. But you're so sure of

> > your WCR info that you fail completely to look at new information and take
> > it into consideration. You're stuck in 1963!
>
> Yes I am stuck in 1963. You are trying to use modern technology and make
> it 50 years retroactive. The McClelland drawing shows a huge wound in the
> right occiput. To extend it across the parietal bone all the way to the
> coronal suture means there is no support for the right side of the
> cranium. This allegation is absurd. No photo or X-ray shows anything
> like that.
>

I've pointed that out a number of times, but you miss these things when
you don't like them. Some photos should have a concave depression from
the wound descriptions and the X-rays showing a large part of the forepart
of the head as missing.

> > > Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.
> > >
> >
> > BULLSHIT! I've NEVER said anything like that! Where do you get these
> > weird ideas? I think some films were not modified because they didn't
> > show enough. But the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Don't
> > blame me for that, I didn't do it. There is a witness that said it, and

> > also independent analyses that show that the film was altered, and I'll bet

> > you haven't had to courage to look at them.
>
> The Zapruder film had more than one copy. When the Life Magazine copy was
> damaged they used the other copies to fix it. How exactly do you think
> the Z-film was altered? Have other films that corroborate the Z-film been
> altered too?
>

If they alter the Z-film, obviously they have to replace all the copies
from the new Z-film. And I'm sure they did that. And at one point Life
magazine offered a large sum of money for ALL copies and ALL rights to the
film, and at that time all copies could be brought together. And don't
kid yourself that Life magazine had no connections to the CIA.

> > > As if that were not enough you claim by endorsement, a sniper fired 3 shots from the GK before any shots were heard from the TSBD. Terrible coordination if the idea was to frame the PLP in the window on the 6th floor. You also believe two dubious witnesses whose stories conflict rather than corroborate.
> > >
> >
> > You have gone right out of your mind! I have NEVER said that any

> > shooter fired 3 shots from the GK...not EVER! And who do you think I

> > endorsed that said such a dumb thing?
>
> The fact you ask this question speaks volumes. You obviously didn't read
> the multiple versions of Gordon Arnold's evolving story. He said there
> were two shots over his left shoulder "then a blend" so add 2 more shots.
> All this before any shots were heard from the TSBD!
>

The Gordon Arnold story I heard was a video, and I haven't heard of ANY
other versions of his story. You need to prove that with links to the
location where this extra story info is at. If it's not one of your made
up facts. I have NOT heard of ANY other shots except 2 that went over his
head forcing him to hit the dirt.

>
> > And who are the 2 witnesses that don't agree with each other? As usual,
> > for your little games, you fail miserably to name or link to anything
> > you're talking about, so I have no idea what's on your little mind.
>
> Arnold's tale does not match Hoffmans's story. You didn't notice before
> now? Maybe it's time you pick one and lose the other. Actually neither
> one makes sense so throw 'em both in the trashcan where they belong.
>

Throw out stories on YOUR say-so? Naah! That 2 people saw slightly
different sides of the same thing, the 2 stories fit. Arnold couldn't see
behind the fence, and Hoffman couldn't see him in front of it.

> > > So yes your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Too many loose ends you don't know what to do with.
> > >
> >

> > I'd know a lot more what to do with your whole statement above, if you

> > gave the information to know what the hell you're talking about half the time!
>
> What's with the black Southern accent? Are you trying to mimic Hillary
> Clinton?
>

I have a surprise for you. White and black alike speak that way in the
south. I lived there for a good while. Have you?

> > And I'm NOT giving you "THEORIES". I'm giving you sworn testimony from
> > those that experienced the events spoken about.
>
> There has been much sworn testimony from well meaning witnesses in this
> case who were truthful about what they honestly thought they saw and
> heard. Just because they got one or two details wrong doesn't mean they
> were lying. Some of the best witnesses made a mistake on one or two
> details. You need to put it all together in a holistic analysis to
> understand the big picture.

Holistically analyze this...over 39+ witnesses saw a 'large hole' in
the BOH of JFK. Including a number of medically trained personnel. 6
people saw the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the
limousine, including an SS agent. 6 or more witnesses saw the bullet hole
in the temple/forehead area on JFK. So analyze all those items.

Chris

[claviger]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 6/1/2015 6:28 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 6:40:24 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> >> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> >>> mainframetech

> >>> - show quoted text -

> >>> I always thought highly of the NOVA program. But lately they've lost
> >>> my admiration for some of the attitudes they took, and even more recently,
> >>> what they said incorrectly about the physicians and their statements about
> >>> the autopsy photographs! Here's a snippet on that:
> >>>
> >>> "On leaving, they were asked by Nova if their recollections disagreed
> >>> with the photographs. This time many investigators expected that they
> >>> would disagree, but now-another kind of surprise-these physicians seemed
> >>> to imply that they had seen no discrepancies. Nonetheless, on subsequent
> >>> careful questioning, they later complained that the Nova program had
> >>> either misquoted or misinterpreted their comments (Harrison Livingstone,
> >>> Killing the Truth 1993, p. 305), meaning that the paradox was still alive.

> >>> In particular, as Livingstone clarifies, all that these doctors had meant

> >>> was that the pictures they saw in the Archives were the same as the
> >>> pictures that had been publicly published."
> >>>

> >>> From: "Murder in Dealey Plaza", article "Paradoxes of the JFK
> >>> Assassination - The Medical Evidence" by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD page 233
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That quote is a lie. The doctors said that the X-rays matched what they saw at Parkland. This is recorded in the NOVA documentary. Mantik offers second hand hearsay, claiming that Livingstone "clarified" what the doctors really meant to say.
> >>>
> >>> A despicable twisting of the truth.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Read it again. You've made an error, as usual! First, we're not in
> >> court, so your comment about hearsay has no bearing on anything. Folks
> >> can decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. The LNs often
> >> use the accusation of lying, or being mistaken as defenses from the truth.
> >>
> >> And for you to use words like "despicable" you've really dramatized
> >> this into a monster...:)
> >>
> >> Try and consider how many people have stated that there was a 'large
> >> hole' at the BOH of JFK. This makes one or more of the autopsy photos
> >> altered. The physicians knew that a 'large hole' vs. a smooth BOH with
> >> hair and NO 'large hole' was WRONG! We're talking about a large number of
> >> people that would agree with them.
> >>
> >> Face it Some of the autopsy photos were altered to fool the suckers.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> > The fact so many doctors in ER were able to observe the head wound is
> > proof it was not in back of the head. The President was in the
> > Trendelenburg position in TR1 which means the McClelland drawing is wrong.
>

> Silly. In the trauma room the Trendelenburg position is not used. And what
> are you calling the McClelland drawing? It does not show the President on
> the gurney. It was drawn by a conspiracy author, not McClelland.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Trauma1.html
Page 529
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL
DALLAS
November 22, 1963 1630
To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital
From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology
Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was
elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a
venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional
fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered
from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by
approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being
carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral
pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence
of cardiac activity.

[claviger]

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 10:35:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 9:40:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 5:26:04 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:34:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:59:35 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 9:58:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > > > > > > > Anthony Marsh
>

> > As I've said before, just because a witness got it wrong doesn't mean they
> > are lying. They are just mistaken. No doubt they are sincere in
> > believing what they say.
> No one has accused them of lying. Only of being wrong. Many witnesses
> are straightforward in their statements, as I have often said. I've also
> quoted many witnesses, and when they corroborate each other, then there is
> almost NO chance of error. Such as the case of the many that have stated
> that they saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.

So what do we do with all the witnesses who saw a gaping wound on top of
the President's head? All those who witnessed it on Elm Street and inside
TR1? Is it just amazing coincidence all these witnesses describe a wound
that has yet to be made on the President's skull immediately before the
autopsy?

> > > Your attempts to sound like you are on the inside of the police with your
> > > using terms seen on TV cops and robbers, like 'throwdown' bullet in the > > > > "ER" is ridiculous.
> > "Throw down" is part of common lexicon. It means inserting a piece of
> > evidence at a crime scene that doesn't belong there. The hospital ER
> > isn't the crime scene per se, but close enough. One SSA claims he did
> > discover this bullet at the crime scene but moved it to ER. If true the
> > evidence is real not a throw down, but you are the one who claims TGC
> > placed the wrong kind of bullet in ER that has nothing to do with the
> > wounds on the President.
> Crime scene terminology isn't really all that common usage.
> Few use it in normal conversation or debate. Detectives might use it though.

And you know this how?

> And as is often the case, you've got yourself mixed up again. I've
> suggested that the bullet left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was a
> standard bullet, of a type that most would recognize as a bullet. Later
> when there was a need to go into the custody of bullets, the CE399 bullet
> was no longer a standard bullet, it was an MC type bullet, and matched the
> MC rifle. Proof that the bullet was replaced during its stay with the FBI
> custodian. Identification of that bullet was refused by 4 men that had
> handled the original bullet, 2 of which should have initialed it and
> didn't for some odd reason.

Are you saying the original bullet placed "on the WRONG gurney at
Parkland" was the actual bullet that caused wounds on both passengers
siting in tandem or just one of the passengers? If only one passenger
which one? What happened to the bullet that wounded the other passenger?

> > > I didn't make up the bullet in the ER (I assume you are talking about the
> > > bullet on Connally's operating room. That came from others, and has been
> > > around for years.
> > Yes, as a throw down pristine magic bullet. It was not pristine or magic.
> > This 6.5 military projectile with a thick copper jacket and high ballistic
> > coefficient had a reputation for rugged deep penetration of targets
> > without tumbling or disintegrating.
> Nope, wrong. I was speaking of the bullet that dropped from a wound on
> Connally and was picked up by a nurse and brought out of the surgery by
> her.

Which bullet was that? Are you saying a third bullet?

> The bullet that you're speaking of was the replacement bullet that was
> originally left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland. And though it wasn't
> "pristine", it was fairly undamaged compared to what was said to have ben
> its history. That's the bullet that now matches a test bullet in the
> bends and flattening and bit of material missing from the tail end, like a
> test bullet. Here they are in a WC display:
> http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif

Your explanation is clear as mud. How many bullets are you talking about?

> > > Now, let's look once again at your foolish comment about surgeons that
> > > do plastic surgery. THERE WAS NO SURGEON DOING ANY PLASTIC SURGERY AT
> > > BETHESDA THAT NIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? WILL YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR MEMORY
> > > TO REMEMBER THAT?
> > > As well, Humes and Boswell did NOT cover up any wound in the BOH of
> > > JFK. They merely expanded it with scalpel and bone saw, as I've proved to
> > > you with witnesses.
> > You have proved nothing and now your explanation is even more ridiculous.
> > Look at the McClelland illustration that you accept as correct and imagine
> > extending it to the top of the skull. There would be nothing left of the
> > entire right side of the skull.
> You're catching on now. Have you gone through the descriptions by Humes
> and Boswell of the head AT the autopsy? By comparison to what the head
> looked like at Parkland, it was a humongous difference. And the ONLY opportunity
> there was to make those changes in the head was at 6:35pm when the body
> arrived early BEFORE the autopsy and Humes and Boswell were seen working
> on the head with scalpel and bone saw during their 'clandestine' 'surgery'.

You forget there were several Doctors in ER who noticed a large wound on
top of the skull on the right side of the parietal/temporal region. Dr
Burkley saw the wound in TR1 as well. Do you think he read the final
autopsy report carefully?

Burkley wrote this in the White House Death Certificate.

"The wound was shattering in type causing a fragmentation of the skull and
evulsion of three particles of the skull at time of impact, with resulting
maceration of the right hemisphere of the brain."

Why did he not say back of the head? According to you there was no damage
to the top of the skull when he saw the body in TR1.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587&relPageId=2

> They gave away that they did 'clandestine' work on the body with
> comments made by Humes at the autopsy, particularly when he made the
> comment that the brain 'fell out into his hands', which it couldn't do
> unless the brain stem and optic nerves had been cut previously. As well,
> the major arteries and veins also were cut in advance of the autopsy at

In testimony Humes stated the gaping wound on the head was so large they
did not need to use normal procedure to saw off the skull cap to remove
the brain.

> > > Strange that you see the proof and go on by as if you
> > > saw nothing. It was invisible to you. When they did that clandestine
> > > work, there was no one around except the witnesses and later no one but
> > > Humes and Boswell and Robinson.
> > What proof? All I see is confusing speculation on your part.
> Really weird. I've put out the actual testimony of the people that
> witnessed the clandestine surgery that the FBI agents saw, and now you
> can't remember any of it. I do believe that you have an odd memory that
> only takes in what it wants and ignores anything that isn't in the WCR.

Not weird at all. You said only Humes and Boswell worked on the head
prior to Finck arriving. No one else watched them do this close up. So
the witnesses you cite watched from a distance and could not say for sure
what they did.

> > > > You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.
> > > GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD! THERE WAS NO HOLE FILLED IN THAT
> > > NIGHT. THE HOLE IN THE BOH WAS EXPANDED TO GO AROUND THE SIDE AND SOME OF
> > > THE TOP OF THE HEAD. NO PLASTIC SURGERY WAS DONE. And if you check the
> > > descriptions from Parkland vs. the descriptions from Bethesda after the
> > > clandestine work was done, you'll see it yourself. But you're so sure of
> > > your WCR info that you fail completely to look at new information and take
> > > it into consideration. You're stuck in 1963!
> > Yes I am stuck in 1963. You are trying to use modern technology and make
> > it 50 years retroactive. The McClelland drawing shows a huge wound in the
> > right occiput. To extend it across the parietal bone all the way to the
> > coronal suture means there is no support for the right side of the
> > cranium. This allegation is absurd. No photo or X-ray shows anything
> > like that.
> I've pointed that out a number of times, but you miss these things when
> you don't like them. Some photos should have a concave depression from
> the wound descriptions and the X-rays showing a large part of the forepart
> of the head as missing.

Why concave if an exit wound? A large part of the forepart of the head is
missing because it was an exit wound.

> > > > Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.
> > > BULLSHIT! I've NEVER said anything like that! Where do you get these
> > > weird ideas? I think some films were not modified because they didn't
> > > show enough. But the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Don't
> > > blame me for that, I didn't do it. There is a witness that said it, and
> > > also independent analyses that show that the film was altered, and I'll bet
> > > you haven't had to courage to look at them.
> > The Zapruder film had more than one copy. When the Life Magazine copy was
> > damaged they used the other copies to fix it. How exactly do you think
> > the Z-film was altered? Have other films that corroborate the Z-film been
> > altered too?
> If they alter the Z-film, obviously they have to replace all the copies
> from the new Z-film. And I'm sure they did that. And at one point Life
> magazine offered a large sum of money for ALL copies and ALL rights to the
> film, and at that time all copies could be brought together. And don't
> kid yourself that Life magazine had no connections to the CIA.

The Zapruder family held onto one copy for a long time. Abraham Zapruder
indicates where the head wound was located the same day.

> > > > As if that were not enough you claim by endorsement, a sniper fired 3 shots from the GK before any shots were heard from the TSBD. Terrible coordination if the idea was to frame the PLP in the window on the 6th floor. You also believe two dubious witnesses whose stories conflict rather than corroborate.
> > > You have gone right out of your mind! I have NEVER said that any
> > > shooter fired 3 shots from the GK...not EVER! And who do you think I
> > > endorsed that said such a dumb thing?
> > The fact you ask this question speaks volumes. You obviously didn't read
> > the multiple versions of Gordon Arnold's evolving story. He said there
> > were two shots over his left shoulder "then a blend" so add 2 more shots.
> > All this before any shots were heard from the TSBD!
> The Gordon Arnold story I heard was a video, and I haven't heard of ANY
> other versions of his story. You need to prove that with links to the
> location where this extra story info is at. If it's not one of your made
> up facts. I have NOT heard of ANY other shots except 2 that went over his
> head forcing him to hit the dirt.

Again you demonstrate a slapdash approach to this case which is the reason
why you make so many obvious mistakes.

> > > And who are the 2 witnesses that don't agree with each other? As usual,
> > > for your little games, you fail miserably to name or link to anything
> > > you're talking about, so I have no idea what's on your little mind.
> > Arnold's tale does not match Hoffmans's story. You didn't notice before
> > now? Maybe it's time you pick one and lose the other. Actually neither
> > one makes sense so throw 'em both in the trashcan where they belong.
> Throw out stories on YOUR say-so? Naah! That 2 people saw slightly
> different sides of the same thing, the 2 stories fit. Arnold couldn't see
> behind the fence, and Hoffman couldn't see him in front of it.

Show us how they fit together. You can't because they don't. The
implication of Arnold's story is a man dressed in a police uniform did the
shooting from behind the fence then blew his cover to come around the
front for all the world to see and kicked Arnold while he was still on the
ground, demanding his camera. The 8mm camera had no sound and could not
recod bullets flying by at supersonic speed, so what possible value could
it have? It was not capable of matching sound with wound impact. Why
didn't this sniper go steal Zapruder's camera too? Pure nonsense any
sniper would hang around to have this confrontation that would have been
noticed by witnesses on the GK and across the street. After shots are
fired escape is the highest priority.

Arnold was using a borrowed camera. Do you know who that camera belonged
to?

> > > > So yes your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Too many loose ends you don't know what to do with.
> > > >
> > > I'd know a lot more what to do with your whole statement above, if you
> > > gave the information to know what the hell you're talking about half the time!
> > What's with the black Southern accent? Are you trying to mimic Hillary
> > Clinton?
> I have a surprise for you. White and black alike speak that way in the
> south. I lived there for a good while. Have you?

Hillary was born and raised in Chicago.

> > > And I'm NOT giving you "THEORIES". I'm giving you sworn testimony from
> > > those that experienced the events spoken about.
> > There has been much sworn testimony from well meaning witnesses in this
> > case who were truthful about what they honestly thought they saw and
> > heard. Just because they got one or two details wrong doesn't mean they
> > were lying. Some of the best witnesses made a mistake on one or two
> > details. You need to put it all together in a holistic analysis to
> > understand the big picture.
> Holistically analyze this...over 39+ witnesses saw a 'large hole' in
> the BOH of JFK. Including a number of medically trained personnel. 6
> people saw the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the
> limousine, including an SS agent. 6 or more witnesses saw the bullet hole
> in the temple/forehead area on JFK. So analyze all those items.

I already have and found several glaring errors. Reread these discussions:

alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20list$2040$2B|sort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo/kcPf6y0UjVIJ

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Two well placed witnesses trump 40 others
21 posts by 4 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$2040$2B$20witnesses|sort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/l0Detop0_Po/idSxXpdks8QJ

>
> Chris

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:35:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> No one has accused them of lying. Only of being wrong. Many witnesses
> are straightforward in their statements, as I have often said. I've also
> quoted many witnesses, and when they corroborate each other, then there is
> almost NO chance of error. Such as the case of the many that have stated
> that they saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
>

Is that so. Then explain this. A number of witnesses thought all the shots
came from the drection of the GK. Another group of witnesses said all the
shots came from the direction of the TSBD. One of these groups has to be
wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but one of
them is wrong for sure. That means that in the group got it wrong, there
were numerous people who "corroborated" each other yet they all got it
wrong, despite your claim there is "almost NO chance of error" when
witnesses corroborate each other.

We could make similar examples for the number and spacing of the shots,
but the point is made. Numerous people can make the same mistake.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where have you been? Witnesses have indeed been accused of lying.

>
>
>>> Your attempts to sound like you are on the inside of the police with your
>>> using terms seen on TV cops and robbers, like 'throwdown' bullet in the "ER" > is ridiculous.
>>
>> "Throw down" is part of common lexicon. It means inserting a piece of
>> evidence at a crime scene that doesn't belong there. The hospital ER
>> isn't the crime scene per se, but close enough. One SSA claims he did
>> discover this bullet at the crime scene but moved it to ER. If true the
>> evidence is real not a throw down, but you are the one who claims TGC
>> placed the wrong kind of bullet in ER that has nothing to do with the
>> wounds on the President.
>>
>
>
> Crime scene terminology isn't really all that common usage. Few use it
> in normal conversation or debate. Detectives might use it though.
>
> And as is often the case, you've got yourself mixed up again. I've
> suggested that the bullet left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was a
> standard bullet, of a type that most would recognize as a bullet. Later

So you say that no one could recognize CE 399 as a bullet? Most people
would assume it was a pen? Silly.

> when there was a need to go into the custody of bullets, the CE399 bullet
> was no longer a standard bullet, it was an MC type bullet, and matched the
> MC rifle. Proof that the bullet was replaced during its stay with the FBI
> custodian. Identification of that bullet was refused by 4 men that had
> handled the original bullet, 2 of which should have initialed it and
> didn't for some odd reason.
>

Was the pointed tip bullet the same length as the WCC bullet?

>
>
>>> I didn't make up the bullet in the ER (I assume you are talking about the
>>> bullet on Connally's operating room. That came from others, and has been
>>> around for years.
>>
>> Yes, as a throw down pristine magic bullet. It was not pristine or magic.
>> This 6.5 military projectile with a thick copper jacket and high ballistic
>> coefficient had a reputation for rugged deep penetration of targets
>> without tumbling or disintegrating.
>>
>
>
> Nope, wrong. I was speaking of the bullet that dropped from a wound on
> Connally and was picked up by a nurse and brought out of the surgery by
> her.
>

Fiction by a fiction writer.

> The bullet that you're speaking of was the replacement bullet that was
> originally left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland. And though it wasn't
> "pristine", it was fairly undamaged compared to what was said to have ben
> its history. That's the bullet that now matches a test bullet in the
> bends and flattening and bit of material missing from the tail end, like a
> test bullet. Here they are in a WC display:
>
> http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
>
>
>
>>
>>> Now, let's look once again at your foolish comment about surgeons that
>>> do plastic surgery. THERE WAS NO SURGEON DOING ANY PLASTIC SURGERY AT
>>> BETHESDA THAT NIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? WILL YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR MEMORY
>>> TO REMEMBER THAT?
>>>
>>> As well, Humes and Boswell did NOT cover up any wound in the BOH of
>>> JFK. They merely expanded it with scalpel and bone saw, as I've proved to
>>> you with witnesses.
>>
>> You have proved nothing and now your explanation is even more ridiculous.
>> Look at the McClelland illustration that you accept as correct and imagine
>> extending it to the top of the skull. There would be nothing left of the
>> entire right side of the skull.
>>
>
>
> You're catching on now. Have you gone through the descriptions by Humes
> and Boswell of the head AT the autopsy? By comparison to what the head
> looked like at Parkland, it was a humongous difference. And the ONLY opportunity
> there was to make those changes in the head was at 6:35pm when the body
> arrived early BEFORE the autopsy and Humes and Boswell were seen working
> on the head with scalpel and bone saw during their 'clandestine' 'surgery'.
>

No, I explained why Humes said that. He was confused by the gauze
squares packed into the head wound. He thought those were left over from
surgery.

> They gave away that they did 'clandestine' work on the body with
> comments made by Humes at the autopsy, particularly when he made the
> comment that the brain 'fell out into his hands', which it couldn't do
> unless the brain stem and optic nerves had been cut previously. As well,
> the major arteries and veins also were cut in advance of the autopsy at
> 8:00pm.

Silly. That is not always necessary.

>
>
>
>>> Strange that you see the proof and go on by as if you
>>> saw nothing. It was invisible to you. When they did that clandestine
>>> work, there was no one around except the witnesses and later no one but
>>> Humes and Boswell and Robinson.
>>
>> What proof? All I see is confusing speculation on your part.
>>
>
>
> Really weird. I've put out the actual testimony of the people that
> witnessed the clandestine surgery that the FBI agents saw, and now you

The FBI agents did not see any clandestine surgery. How can it be
clandestine if they were watching it?

You intentionally misused words to prop up your crazy theories.

> can't remember any of it. I do believe that you have an odd memory that
> only takes in what it wants and ignores anything that isn't in the WCR.
>
>
>
>>>> You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.
>>>
>>>
>>> GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD! THERE WAS NO HOLE FILLED IN THAT
>>> NIGHT. THE HOLE IN THE BOH WAS EXPANDED TO GO AROUND THE SIDE AND SOME OF
>>> THE TOP OF THE HEAD. NO PLASTIC SURGERY WAS DONE. And if you check the
>>> descriptions from Parkland vs. the descriptions from Bethesda after the
>>> clandestine work was done, you'll see it yourself. But you're so sure of
>>> your WCR info that you fail completely to look at new information and take
>>> it into consideration. You're stuck in 1963!
>>
>> Yes I am stuck in 1963. You are trying to use modern technology and make
>> it 50 years retroactive. The McClelland drawing shows a huge wound in the
>> right occiput. To extend it across the parietal bone all the way to the
>> coronal suture means there is no support for the right side of the
>> cranium. This allegation is absurd. No photo or X-ray shows anything
>> like that.
>>
>
>
> I've pointed that out a number of times, but you miss these things when
> you don't like them. Some photos should have a concave depression from
> the wound descriptions and the X-rays showing a large part of the forepart
> of the head as missing.

You keep running your mouth, but you never back up anything with hard
evidence. Show me the photos.

>
>
>
>>>> Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.
>>>>
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT! I've NEVER said anything like that! Where do you get these
>>> weird ideas? I think some films were not modified because they didn't
>>> show enough. But the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Don't
>>> blame me for that, I didn't do it. There is a witness that said it, and
>>> also independent analyses that show that the film was altered, and I'll bet
>>> you haven't had to courage to look at them.
>>
>> The Zapruder film had more than one copy. When the Life Magazine copy was
>> damaged they used the other copies to fix it. How exactly do you think
>> the Z-film was altered? Have other films that corroborate the Z-film been
>> altered too?
>>
>
>
> If they alter the Z-film, obviously they have to replace all the copies
> from the new Z-film. And I'm sure they did that. And at one point Life
> magazine offered a large sum of money for ALL copies and ALL rights to the
> film, and at that time all copies could be brought together. And don't
> kid yourself that Life magazine had no connections to the CIA.
>

Nonsense.

[mainframetech]

As usual, you've made an error right from the get-go. You ASSume that
there were shots from only one of 2 places, when in reality there were
shots from both and probably a few other places too. I don't know the
acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete parts of
the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
different impression, as would being positioned differently in the plaza.
The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the plaza.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 8:22:29 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 10:35:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 9:40:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 5:26:04 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:34:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:59:35 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 9:58:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Anthony Marsh
> >
> > > As I've said before, just because a witness got it wrong doesn't mean they
> > > are lying. They are just mistaken. No doubt they are sincere in
> > > believing what they say.
> > No one has accused them of lying. Only of being wrong. Many witnesses
> > are straightforward in their statements, as I have often said. I've also
> > quoted many witnesses, and when they corroborate each other, then there is
> > almost NO chance of error. Such as the case of the many that have stated
> > that they saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
>
> So what do we do with all the witnesses who saw a gaping wound on top of
> the President's head? All those who witnessed it on Elm Street and inside
> TR1? Is it just amazing coincidence all these witnesses describe a wound
> that has yet to be made on the President's skull immediately before the
> autopsy?
>

here we go again. Show a list of all the people that saw a "gaping
wound" on the top of the head while in TR1. You'll find there's NO ONE.
You're making stuff up again.

And you've forgotten the sequence of things at Bethesda once again.
When the body arrived early at Bethesda morgue at 6:35pm, it was set upon
by Humes and Boswell with scalpels and bone saw, and the expansion of the
BOH wound was done to cover also the right side of the head and some of
the top. THEN "immediately before the autopsy" the onlookers saw the
damage to the top of the head, and thought there had been 'surgery' done
at Parkland. Simple.

> > > > Your attempts to sound like you are on the inside of the police with your
> > > > using terms seen on TV cops and robbers, like 'throwdown' bullet in the > > > > "ER" is ridiculous.
> > > "Throw down" is part of common lexicon. It means inserting a piece of
> > > evidence at a crime scene that doesn't belong there. The hospital ER
> > > isn't the crime scene per se, but close enough. One SSA claims he did
> > > discover this bullet at the crime scene but moved it to ER. If true the
> > > evidence is real not a throw down, but you are the one who claims TGC
> > > placed the wrong kind of bullet in ER that has nothing to do with the
> > > wounds on the President.
> > Crime scene terminology isn't really all that common usage.
> > Few use it in normal conversation or debate. Detectives might use it though.
>
> And you know this how?
>

By listening to normal conversation for many years, and not hearing
ANYONE going on using such terminology.

> > And as is often the case, you've got yourself mixed up again. I've
> > suggested that the bullet left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was a
> > standard bullet, of a type that most would recognize as a bullet. Later
> > when there was a need to go into the custody of bullets, the CE399 bullet
> > was no longer a standard bullet, it was an MC type bullet, and matched the
> > MC rifle. Proof that the bullet was replaced during its stay with the FBI
> > custodian. Identification of that bullet was refused by 4 men that had
> > handled the original bullet, 2 of which should have initialed it and
> > didn't for some odd reason.
>
> Are you saying the original bullet placed "on the WRONG gurney at
> Parkland" was the actual bullet that caused wounds on both passengers
> siting in tandem or just one of the passengers? If only one passenger
> which one? What happened to the bullet that wounded the other passenger?
>

Of course not! The bullet found on the WRONG gurney was just left
there because they needed a bullet to pretend for a short while that it
came from the murder. There was NO WAY to prove such a connection, but
foolish people are very suggestive, so one person just had to suggest it
and most people believed it for some odd reason. That bullet NEVER hit
any person anywhere.

If you're speaking of the bullet that hit Connally and wound up in his
thigh, and later fell out in the operating room, a nurse gave it to an
authority and it 'disappeared' as did most bullets in this case. It was
too dangerous to leave any bullets around. It was unknown what rifle they
came from. The bullet that killed JFK hit him in the right
forehead/temple area and caused the large blow-out at the BOH. The bullet
that struck him in the upper back only went in an inch or so, and then
fell out, as per an X-ray Technician who saw it fall from the back. It
was grabbed by Pierre Finck and then 'disappeared'.

>
> > > > I didn't make up the bullet in the ER (I assume you are talking about the
> > > > bullet on Connally's operating room. That came from others, and has been
> > > > around for years.
> > > Yes, as a throw down pristine magic bullet. It was not pristine or magic.
> > > This 6.5 military projectile with a thick copper jacket and high ballistic
> > > coefficient had a reputation for rugged deep penetration of targets
> > > without tumbling or disintegrating.
> > Nope, wrong. I was speaking of the bullet that dropped from a wound on
> > Connally and was picked up by a nurse and brought out of the surgery by
> > her.
>
> Which bullet was that? Are you saying a third bullet?
>

I'm saying that the one bullet that hit Connally wound up in his thigh
and fell out in the operating room. It was picked up by a nurse and taken
out of the OR and she was told to give it to an agent, either FBI or SS,
which she did, and it 'disappeared' after that.

> > The bullet that you're speaking of was the replacement bullet that was
> > originally left on the WRONG gurney at Parkland. And though it wasn't

> > "pristine", it was fairly undamaged compared to what was said to have been

> > its history. That's the bullet that now matches a test bullet in the
> > bends and flattening and bit of material missing from the tail end, like a
> > test bullet. Here they are in a WC display:
> > http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
>
> Your explanation is clear as mud. How many bullets are you talking about?
>

I'll be glad to answer if you were more specific in your question.
How many bullets in the whole of Dealey Plaza? Or how many bullets just
used on Connally, or how many used on JFK? Or what? In the plaza about 9
or more. In Connally, probably one. In JFK at least 3, maybe more.

>
> > > > Now, let's look once again at your foolish comment about surgeons that
> > > > do plastic surgery. THERE WAS NO SURGEON DOING ANY PLASTIC SURGERY AT
> > > > BETHESDA THAT NIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? WILL YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR MEMORY
> > > > TO REMEMBER THAT?
> > > > As well, Humes and Boswell did NOT cover up any wound in the BOH of
> > > > JFK. They merely expanded it with scalpel and bone saw, as I've proved to
> > > > you with witnesses.
> > > You have proved nothing and now your explanation is even more ridiculous.
> > > Look at the McClelland illustration that you accept as correct and imagine
> > > extending it to the top of the skull. There would be nothing left of the
> > > entire right side of the skull.
> > You're catching on now. Have you gone through the descriptions by Humes
> > and Boswell of the head AT the autopsy? By comparison to what the head
> > looked like at Parkland, it was a humongous difference. And the ONLY opportunity
> > there was to make those changes in the head was at 6:35pm when the body
> > arrived early BEFORE the autopsy and Humes and Boswell were seen working
> > on the head with scalpel and bone saw during their 'clandestine' 'surgery'.
>
> You forget there were several Doctors in ER who noticed a large wound on
> top of the skull on the right side of the parietal/temporal region. Dr
> Burkley saw the wound in TR1 as well. Do you think he read the final
> autopsy report carefully?
>

List the people in the ER who saw this "large wound" "on top of the
skull". You'll find it was zero people. You're thinking of Bethesda
AFTER Humes and Boswell got at the body and expanded the 'large hole' in
the BOH to go around the right side and some of the top. Go ahead, list
them and quote even one of them. And if you're in the mood, quote Burkley
that he saw a wound there too. It's all bull. There was no such wound,
and no list of people.

> Burkley wrote this in the White House Death Certificate.
>
> "The wound was shattering in type causing a fragmentation of the skull and
> evulsion of three particles of the skull at time of impact, with resulting
> maceration of the right hemisphere of the brain."
>
> Why did he not say back of the head? According to you there was no damage
> to the top of the skull when he saw the body in TR1.
>

That is the case. There were 39+ witnesses to that fact, many of whom
were medical staff in the ER. IF Burkley said that, he was wrong and was
quoting the results of the autopsy. However, since the kill shot came
from the right front, and blasted through the brain on the right side,
that would cause some of the "maceration" of the brain. Your quote of
Burkley doesn't say anything about the TOP of the head.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587&relPageId=2
>



> > They gave away that they did 'clandestine' work on the body with
> > comments made by Humes at the autopsy, particularly when he made the
> > comment that the brain 'fell out into his hands', which it couldn't do
> > unless the brain stem and optic nerves had been cut previously. As well,
> > the major arteries and veins also were cut in advance of the autopsy at
>
> In testimony Humes stated the gaping wound on the head was so large they
> did not need to use normal procedure to saw off the skull cap to remove
> the brain.
>

Strange then that 2 witnesses saw them using a bone saw on the head of
JFK. But the wound at the BOH was not large enough to let the brain be
taken out through it. Edward Reed saw them using the bone saw to make a
cut in the skull to let the brain come out. They had to find and get rid
of any bullets that may have stayed in the skull from the murder. Humes
was caught lying a few times in the case, including pretending that he
learned about the tracheostomy over the bullet wound in the morning, when
2 witnesses knew that he learned that DURING the autopsy.

> > > > Strange that you see the proof and go on by as if you
> > > > saw nothing. It was invisible to you. When they did that clandestine
> > > > work, there was no one around except the witnesses and later no one but
> > > > Humes and Boswell and Robinson.
> > > What proof? All I see is confusing speculation on your part.
> > Really weird. I've put out the actual testimony of the people that
> > witnessed the clandestine surgery that the FBI agents saw, and now you
> > can't remember any of it. I do believe that you have an odd memory that
> > only takes in what it wants and ignores anything that isn't in the WCR.
>
> Not weird at all. You said only Humes and Boswell worked on the head
> prior to Finck arriving. No one else watched them do this close up. So
> the witnesses you cite watched from a distance and could not say for sure
> what they did.
>

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I have said 2 people watched Humes and
Boswell work on the head of JFK during their clandestine 'surgery'. They
were Edward Reed and Tom Robinson, Custer may have also been present. If
you read Reed's testimony, you will hear some very specific work he saw
them do. He was kicked out of the morgue soon after, but not before he
saw plenty. In Robinson's interview he made a list of what wounds were
already there in the body, and what was "caused by the pathologists".
Meaning that they damaged the body from his point of view.

Your time sequence is off too. After the clandestine surgery, the body
was put into the bronze casket and went back out of the morgue. Later at
8:00pm The casket was brought into the morgue, and the body taken out and
put on the table. At 8:30pm Finck arrived.

> > > > > You never tell us where the scalp and bone came from to fill in and patch the original hole in the occiput. Then you daydream an elaborate scenario where fake photos and X-rays are somehow produced at the time of the autopsy but no explanation how this could take place.
> > > > GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD! THERE WAS NO HOLE FILLED IN THAT
> > > > NIGHT. THE HOLE IN THE BOH WAS EXPANDED TO GO AROUND THE SIDE AND SOME OF
> > > > THE TOP OF THE HEAD. NO PLASTIC SURGERY WAS DONE. And if you check the
> > > > descriptions from Parkland vs. the descriptions from Bethesda after the
> > > > clandestine work was done, you'll see it yourself. But you're so sure of
> > > > your WCR info that you fail completely to look at new information and take
> > > > it into consideration. You're stuck in 1963!
> > > Yes I am stuck in 1963. You are trying to use modern technology and make
> > > it 50 years retroactive. The McClelland drawing shows a huge wound in the
> > > right occiput. To extend it across the parietal bone all the way to the
> > > coronal suture means there is no support for the right side of the
> > > cranium. This allegation is absurd. No photo or X-ray shows anything
> > > like that.
> > I've pointed that out a number of times, but you miss these things when
> > you don't like them. Some photos should have a concave depression from
> > the wound descriptions and the X-rays showing a large part of the forepart
> > of the head as missing.
>
> Why concave if an exit wound? A large part of the forepart of the head is
> missing because it was an exit wound.
>

Sounds like you were fooled completely. But that's what a lot of this
stuff was all about. Fooling people into thinking thee was a 'lone
gunman' and that it was Oswald. If you check the descriptions from
Boswell and Humes, and you look at the X-rays where the front part of the
skull is missing on the right side, you realize how big that expanded
wound really was. So much of the skull was supposed to be missing, that a
photo of that area should have the scalp depressed into the wound (no
skull to support it), but those photos don't show it. Some of the photos
are phony.

> > > > > Next you claim all home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were somehow captured and altered by extreme micro technology for 8 mm film, were altered to match and correspond to each other. Not only that but match and correspond to all the autopsy photos as well. Now that is an amazing story if all this was done in 48 hours after the ambush in Dealey Plaza.
> > > > BULLSHIT! I've NEVER said anything like that! Where do you get these
> > > > weird ideas? I think some films were not modified because they didn't
> > > > show enough. But the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Don't
> > > > blame me for that, I didn't do it. There is a witness that said it, and
> > > > also independent analyses that show that the film was altered, and I'll bet
> > > > you haven't had to courage to look at them.
> > > The Zapruder film had more than one copy. When the Life Magazine copy was
> > > damaged they used the other copies to fix it. How exactly do you think
> > > the Z-film was altered? Have other films that corroborate the Z-film been
> > > altered too?
> > If they alter the Z-film, obviously they have to replace all the copies
> > from the new Z-film. And I'm sure they did that. And at one point Life
> > magazine offered a large sum of money for ALL copies and ALL rights to the
> > film, and at that time all copies could be brought together. And don't
> > kid yourself that Life magazine had no connections to the CIA.
>
> The Zapruder family held onto one copy for a long time. Abraham Zapruder
> indicates where the head wound was located the same day.
>

Zapruder was a good way from the action in the limousine. The doctors
and nurses in the ER were a lot closer to the body and could see better,
and had more time.

> > > > > As if that were not enough you claim by endorsement, a sniper fired 3 shots from the GK before any shots were heard from the TSBD. Terrible coordination if the idea was to frame the PLP in the window on the 6th floor. You also believe two dubious witnesses whose stories conflict rather than corroborate.
> > > > You have gone right out of your mind! I have NEVER said that any
> > > > shooter fired 3 shots from the GK...not EVER! And who do you think I
> > > > endorsed that said such a dumb thing?
> > > The fact you ask this question speaks volumes. You obviously didn't read
> > > the multiple versions of Gordon Arnold's evolving story. He said there
> > > were two shots over his left shoulder "then a blend" so add 2 more shots.
> > > All this before any shots were heard from the TSBD!
> > The Gordon Arnold story I heard was a video, and I haven't heard of ANY
> > other versions of his story. You need to prove that with links to the
> > location where this extra story info is at. If it's not one of your made
> > up facts. I have NOT heard of ANY other shots except 2 that went over his
> > head forcing him to hit the dirt.
>
> Again you demonstrate a slapdash approach to this case which is the reason
> why you make so many obvious mistakes.
>

Now you've expressed your opinion, and made a little insult, but said
nothing concrete about your backup for your statements. Like where does
it say there were 4 shots that were heard by Arnold while on the GK?

> > > > And who are the 2 witnesses that don't agree with each other? As usual,
> > > > for your little games, you fail miserably to name or link to anything
> > > > you're talking about, so I have no idea what's on your little mind.
> > > Arnold's tale does not match Hoffmans's story. You didn't notice before
> > > now? Maybe it's time you pick one and lose the other. Actually neither
> > > one makes sense so throw 'em both in the trashcan where they belong.
> > Throw out stories on YOUR say-so? Naah! That 2 people saw slightly
> > different sides of the same thing, the 2 stories fit. Arnold couldn't see
> > behind the fence, and Hoffman couldn't see him in front of it.
>
> Show us how they fit together. You can't because they don't. The
> implication of Arnold's story is a man dressed in a police uniform did the
> shooting from behind the fence then blew his cover to come around the
> front for all the world to see and kicked Arnold while he was still on the
> ground, demanding his camera.

I'll be glad to tell you how they fit together. That's not a problem.
But we have to get the story straight from you. There WAS NO COP firing a
rifle from the fence. That was YOUR wording. You tend to make things up
and just insert them anywhere. First, what Arnold saw and experienced,
like an SS agent telling him to move along, and anything before the murder
was not clear to Hoffman, and he wasn't concentrating on it, so he didn't
mention it. Arnold was in front of the fence and heard a bullet go over
his head and he hit the dirt in front of the fence. The Senator saw that,
so there is corroboration.

Hoffman saw men BEHIND the fence with a rifle. One man after having
fired the rifle, gave it to another and the other walked off with it to
hide it. A separate man (after the murder) came out with a cop's uniform
and commandeered Arnold's movie film. He was no doubt there to get people
away from the men who were doing the dirty work.

So you see, it's simple. It all works out nicely.

> The 8mm camera had no sound and could not
> recod bullets flying by at supersonic speed, so what possible value could
> it have? It was not capable of matching sound with wound impact. Why
> didn't this sniper go steal Zapruder's camera too? Pure nonsense any
> sniper would hang around to have this confrontation that would have been
> noticed by witnesses on the GK and across the street. After shots are
> fired escape is the highest priority.
>

Try and think logically. The shooter(s) did NOT stay around to mess
with Arnold or anyone else. They got out of there. The 'cop' did his
thing of grabbing the 8mm movie film and got out of there. Zapruder was
with someone (his secretary), and he was further away from the fence.
The 'cop' was a phony, so he couldn't just hang around or he would be
asked things and spoken with and they'd figure out he wasn't a cop. He
got out as soon as possible after grabbing the movie film.

> Arnold was using a borrowed camera. Do you know who that camera belonged
> to?
>

I haven't a clue and I don't care. It has no bearing on the case.

> > > > > So yes your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Too many loose ends you don't know what to do with.
> > > > >
> > > > I'd know a lot more what to do with your whole statement above, if you
> > > > gave the information to know what the hell you're talking about half the time!
> > > What's with the black Southern accent? Are you trying to mimic Hillary
> > > Clinton?
> > I have a surprise for you. White and black alike speak that way in the
> > south. I lived there for a good while. Have you?
>
> Hillary was born and raised in Chicago.
>

Does that somehow have a bearing on what we're discussing?

> > > > And I'm NOT giving you "THEORIES". I'm giving you sworn testimony from
> > > > those that experienced the events spoken about.
> > > There has been much sworn testimony from well meaning witnesses in this
> > > case who were truthful about what they honestly thought they saw and
> > > heard. Just because they got one or two details wrong doesn't mean they
> > > were lying. Some of the best witnesses made a mistake on one or two
> > > details. You need to put it all together in a holistic analysis to
> > > understand the big picture.
> > Holistically analyze this...over 39+ witnesses saw a 'large hole' in
> > the BOH of JFK. Including a number of medically trained personnel. 6
> > people saw the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the
> > limousine, including an SS agent. 6 or more witnesses saw the bullet hole
> > in the temple/forehead area on JFK. So analyze all those items.
>
> I already have and found several glaring errors. Reread these discussions:
>
> alt.assassination.jfk ›
> 52 Autopsy Photos
> 27 posts by 6 authors
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20list$2040$2B|sort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/tvhNsTIiRjo/kcPf6y0UjVIJ
>
> alt.assassination.jfk ›
> Two well placed witnesses trump 40 others
> 21 posts by 4 authors
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$2040$2B$20witnesses|sort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/l0Detop0_Po/idSxXpdks8QJ
>

I have big news for you. With the baloney that you make up and then
insert anywhere you please, then fail to back it up later, I'm not going
to bother myself to reread anything. I remember clearly the failure of
your attempt to reduce the numbers of 39+ witnesses to the 'Large hole' in
the BOH of JFK. You were able to find a single error in my list, and I
think you for that, but all your other efforts wee total baloney. My list
matched yours in essence, and though you would like to pick at the
difference in the words used by many people, the meaning was the same.
That a large wound was seen in the right rear of the head.

You need to go back and make a careful look at both lists and se what
I'm telling you, instead of just ignoring it and going on to make more
embarrassing errors.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/16/2015 9:58 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:35:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> No one has accused them of lying. Only of being wrong. Many witnesses
>> are straightforward in their statements, as I have often said. I've also
>> quoted many witnesses, and when they corroborate each other, then there is
>> almost NO chance of error. Such as the case of the many that have stated
>> that they saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
>>
>
> Is that so. Then explain this. A number of witnesses thought all the shots
> came from the drection of the GK. Another group of witnesses said all the
> shots came from the direction of the TSBD. One of these groups has to be
> wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but one of

False logic. Both could be right. Shots came from both directions.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not to the angle you are talking about.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:45:15 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 9:58:18 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 11:35:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > No one has accused them of lying. Only of being wrong. Many witnesses
> > > are straightforward in their statements, as I have often said. I've also
> > > quoted many witnesses, and when they corroborate each other, then there is
> > > almost NO chance of error. Such as the case of the many that have stated
> > > that they saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
> > >
> >
> > Is that so. Then explain this. A number of witnesses thought all the shots
> > came from the drection of the GK. Another group of witnesses said all the
> > shots came from the direction of the TSBD. One of these groups has to be
> > wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but one of
> > them is wrong for sure. That means that in the group got it wrong, there
> > were numerous people who "corroborated" each other yet they all got it
> > wrong, despite your claim there is "almost NO chance of error" when
> > witnesses corroborate each other.
> >
> > We could make similar examples for the number and spacing of the shots,
> > but the point is made. Numerous people can make the same mistake.
>
>
>
> As usual, you've made an error right from the get-go. You ASSume that
> there were shots from only one of 2 places, when in reality there were
> shots from both and probably a few other places too.

If that is true, than both groups of witnesses were wrong since each group
thought all the shots came from only one direction. That would mean in
both groups, everyone got it wrong. Everyone made the same mistake.

> I don't know the
> acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete parts of
> the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
> different impression, as would being positioned differently in the plaza.
> The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
> other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the plaza.
>

So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be wrong.
Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
people made the same mistake.

[mainframetech]

Could be, since we really don't know the acoustic properties of the
various areas. Each may be different. However, we have bullet strikes
all over the plaza, so we know that there had to more than one shooter.

> > I don't know the
> > acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete parts of
> > the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
> > different impression, as would being positioned differently in the plaza.
> > The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
> > other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the plaza.
> >
>
> So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
> people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be wrong.
> Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
> one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
> people made the same mistake.

In this case, it's very possible. But there also may have been some
noise suppression being used too. That may fool many people. By hearing
many shots from many directions, we could say they were all right!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not what they said. You are misrepresenting historical documents
to push a political agenda. Disgraceful.

>> I don't know the
>> acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete parts of
>> the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
>> different impression, as would being positioned differently in the plaza.
>> The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
>> other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the plaza.
>>
>
> So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
> people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be wrong.

He is just being silly.

> Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
> one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
> people made the same mistake.
>

Wrong.

[bigdog]

Once again you demonstrate you know things which aren't remotely true.

>
>
> > > I don't know the
> > > acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete parts of
> > > the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
> > > different impression, as would being positioned differently in the plaza.
> > > The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
> > > other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the plaza.
> > >
> >
> > So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
> > people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be wrong.
> > Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
> > one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
> > people made the same mistake.
>
> In this case, it's very possible.

As I said. You just shot down your own premise. Your premise was that
there was almost no chance multiple people could make the same mistake.
Now you acknowledge that they could.

> But there also may have been some
> noise suppression being used too. That may fool many people. By hearing
> many shots from many directions, we could say they were all right!
>

So multiple witnesses can be fooled into making the same mistake so your
premise that there is almost no chance multiple people could make the same
mistake has been demonstrated to be a faulty one.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Only a very small percentage of witnesses thought the shots came from
more than one direction.

>>> I don't know the
>>> acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete
>>> parts of
>>> the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
>>> different impression, as would being positioned differently in the
>>> plaza.
>>> The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
>>> other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the
>>> plaza.
>>>
>>
>> So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
>> people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be wrong.
>
> He is just being silly.
>
>> Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
>> one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
>> people made the same mistake.
>>
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>

Only a very small percentage of witnesses thought the shots came from
more than one direction.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 11:24:44 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/18/2015 9:00 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > If that is true, than both groups of witnesses were wrong since each group
> > thought all the shots came from only one direction. That would mean in
> > both groups, everyone got it wrong. Everyone made the same mistake.
> >
>
> That is not what they said. You are misrepresenting historical documents
> to push a political agenda. Disgraceful.
>

What historical documents am I misrepresenting? What political agenda am I
pushing?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, we do. BBN placed professional listeners at various spots in Dealey
Plaza during their shooting tests. Stop being silly.
We also don't know how strong gravity was that day. Silly.

[mainframetech]

Once again you demonstrate your opinion, which carries no weight here.

> >
> >
> > > > I don't know the
> > > > acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete parts of
> > > > the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
> > > > different impression, as would being positioned differently in the plaza.
> > > > The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
> > > > other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the plaza.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
> > > people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be wrong.
> > > Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
> > > one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
> > > people made the same mistake.
> >
> > In this case, it's very possible.
>

You don't seem to understand again. Both groups heard shots and
thought they came from one of 2 places. A few thought they heard them
from both places. And they were all right. For any that were wrong they
were wrong altogether and for the same reason. Attempting to nitpick it
isn't going to get anywhere.

> As I said. You just shot down your own premise. Your premise was that
> there was almost no chance multiple people could make the same mistake.
> Now you acknowledge that they could.
>

I did not have any 'premise'. That's stuff for the WC lawyers and their
theories. The phrase was "almost", but you've picked out a special case
where the acoustics play with the hearing of the witnesses.

> > But there also may have been some
> > noise suppression being used too. That may fool many people. By hearing
> > many shots from many directions, we could say they were all right!
> >
>
> So multiple witnesses can be fooled into making the same mistake so your
> premise that there is almost no chance multiple people could make the same
> mistake has been demonstrated to be a faulty one.

Only in special cases. The case of seeing the 'large hole' in the BOH
of JFK had few that saw other than that. And in any case where there are
so many witnesses, there will always be a few that disagree with the
majority.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, according to whom? YOU? LOL
A plurality said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
Therefore you must think the shots came from the grassy knoll.

>
>>>> I don't know the
>>>> acoustics of the plaza, but I would think that with the concrete
>>>> parts of
>>>> the underpass, there could be some echo from it that might give a
>>>> different impression, as would being positioned differently in the
>>>> plaza.
>>>> The evidence is that shots came from the GK, the 6th floor and possibly
>>>> other places as well. Hearing them would depend on location in the
>>>> plaza.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you are shooting down your own premise. You claimed that if multiple
>>> people said the same thing there is almost no chance they could be
>>> wrong.
>>
>> He is just being silly.
>>
>>> Well we have two groups of people who said all the shots came from only
>>> one direction so if we have shots from multiple directions, then lots of
>>> people made the same mistake.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>
>
> Only a very small percentage of witnesses thought the shots came from
> more than one direction.
>

According to you.

[bigdog]

Oh, these are special cases. I guess your definition of "special case" is
one that doesn't fit your narrative. It's a "special case".

[Sandy McCroskey]

And who says different? *You*?! Well, of course you do.
Don't tell me... *You* have "Six Seconds in Dallas" and I don't.
But it looks to me like Mr. Thompson should Tink again!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

> A plurality said the shots came from the grassy knoll.

Better look again at what you've got there.
Quotes from some of Thompson's alleged knoll witnesses:
"There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming
from."
Shots "definitely came from in or around" the Texas School Book
Depository. Decker Exhibit No. 5323
After turn on at Houston and Elm, shot came from "right rear" CE 1024
Said shots came from "the rear of the President's car and above it" 7H564
Said he had no opinion of where the shots came from "by the sound"...
"there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a
sound all over" 7H572

> Therefore you must think the shots came from the grassy knoll.
>

No, I don't believe and I didn't say that the majority of witnesses must
always be correct.
In some instances, the majority of witnesses could be subjected to the
same objective conditions that produce the same errors in perception.

However, I do not believe the majority of earwitnesses in this case
thought the shots came from the knoll. Nor the plurality, for that matter.

[Anthony Marsh]

ALL. Obey the government.

[Mark Florio]

Tony likes to state that no one but him has seen a certain book or piece
of evidence, implying that the rest of us are clueless. He calls a person
a "thing". He implies that a person is living in a "gulag". But he says
he doesn't doesn't attack anyone personally. Mark

[mainframetech]

How can you be so wrong so often? A 'special case' in this context is
a case that doesn't fit the large majority of circumstances, but is not
necessarily wrong.

Chris

[bigdog]

And to think I once accused you of being deliberately vague.

[bigdog]

But in this case is.

[bigdog]

So to sum up, there is almost no chance that multiple witnesses could make
the same mistake unless it is a "special case".

[mainframetech]

Nope, WRONG. 'special case' meant that there were a few outliers
(special cases) in a larger database of replies. When you consider the
majority, it's so large that the special cases have little or no bearing.

Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, in fact there are very few books that I am the only one to have ever
seen. So I don't say that. Often there are documents that I am the only
one who has ever admitted to seeing. So I put them online for others. And
of course the Nazis refuse to look at them.

[bigdog]

As I said originally, the special cases are the ones that don't fit your
narrative.

> Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
> any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
> from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
> in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
> corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)
>

You've presented no timing problems because you have been unable to
establish with precision where Oswald or anyone else was seen at a
particular time. When you are able to do so, get back to us.

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! It has nothing to do with "narrative", but with the
amount of other statements vs. the few outliers. Most cases will have
such outliers, and in most cases, they are ignored if they are
inconsequential.

> > Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
> > any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
> > from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
> > in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
> > corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)
> >
>
> You've presented no timing problems because you have been unable to
> establish with precision where Oswald or anyone else was seen at a
> particular time. When you are able to do so, get back to us.

LOL! "us"? You've decided no one can speak intelligently for
themselves, so now you're going to do it for them?

I repeat, as you knew I would, that EXACT times are NOT needed in this
case, since once we know that Oswald is in the lunchroom, and 2 men with a
gun were seen in the window after that but before the shooting, there's no
way that Oswald will ever get into that window.

This must be terribly depressing for you. To not be able to fake your
way out of a corner, and have NO evidence that helps...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

And you consder them incosequential if they don't fit your narrative.

>
>
>
> > > Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
> > > any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
> > > from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
> > > in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
> > > corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)
> > >
> >
> > You've presented no timing problems because you have been unable to
> > establish with precision where Oswald or anyone else was seen at a
> > particular time. When you are able to do so, get back to us.
>
>
> LOL! "us"? You've decided no one can speak intelligently for
> themselves, so now you're going to do it for them?
>

Oh, I think other people can speak intelligently.

> I repeat, as you knew I would, that EXACT times are NOT needed in this
> case, since once we know that Oswald is in the lunchroom, and 2 men with a
> gun were seen in the window after that but before the shooting, there's no
> way that Oswald will ever get into that window.
>

You can repeat it as often as you like. It's still bullshit.

> This must be terribly depressing for you. To not be able to fake your
> way out of a corner, and have NO evidence that helps...:)
>

There is no corner. You have presented nothing the least bit compelling.

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual. It depends on the numbers of witnesses involved.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
> > > > any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
> > > > from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
> > > > in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
> > > > corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > You've presented no timing problems because you have been unable to
> > > establish with precision where Oswald or anyone else was seen at a
> > > particular time. When you are able to do so, get back to us.
> >
> >
> > LOL! "us"? You've decided no one can speak intelligently for
> > themselves, so now you're going to do it for them?
> >
>
> Oh, I think other people can speak intelligently.
>

Then why do you think you have to speak for them? You're the last
person to be speaking for others with the sheer number of errors you make!

>
> > I repeat, as you knew I would, that EXACT times are NOT needed in this
> > case, since once we know that Oswald is in the lunchroom, and 2 men with a
> > gun were seen in the window after that but before the shooting, there's no
> > way that Oswald will ever get into that window.
> >
>
> You can repeat it as often as you like. It's still bullshit.
>

Not as close to the bull's butt as the silliness you introduce into the
conversation. I've proved that your attempt to demand exact times is a
smokescreen. Time to give it up and admit that Oswald wasn't at the
window and the '2 men with a gun' were.

> > This must be terribly depressing for you. To not be able to fake your
> > way out of a corner, and have NO evidence that helps...:)
> >
>
> There is no corner. You have presented nothing the least bit compelling.

Well you have to say that, you're not able to admit error. You will go
to the silliest extremes to avoid having to admit the many errors you
commit constantly.

Chris

[bigdog]

So tell us how man witnesses you need before you can say they couldn't
have all made the same mistake.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
> > > > > any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
> > > > > from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
> > > > > in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
> > > > > corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You've presented no timing problems because you have been unable to
> > > > establish with precision where Oswald or anyone else was seen at a
> > > > particular time. When you are able to do so, get back to us.
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! "us"? You've decided no one can speak intelligently for
> > > themselves, so now you're going to do it for them?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I think other people can speak intelligently.
> >
>
>
> Then why do you think you have to speak for them?

I don't. I speak for me.

> You're the last
> person to be speaking for others with the sheer number of errors you make!
>

I don't pretend to speak for others even when I am right which is most of
the time.

>
>
> >
> > > I repeat, as you knew I would, that EXACT times are NOT needed in this
> > > case, since once we know that Oswald is in the lunchroom, and 2 men with a
> > > gun were seen in the window after that but before the shooting, there's no
> > > way that Oswald will ever get into that window.
> > >
> >
> > You can repeat it as often as you like. It's still bullshit.
> >
>
>
> Not as close to the bull's butt as the silliness you introduce into the
> conversation. I've proved that your attempt to demand exact times is a
> smokescreen.

So why did you claim to know an exact time in another thread. Don't make the mistake of denying you did that.

> Time to give it up and admit that Oswald wasn't at the
> window and the '2 men with a gun' were.
>

You're right. He was at that window by himself and by the time JFK
arrived, he had the whole floor to himself.

>
>
> > > This must be terribly depressing for you. To not be able to fake your
> > > way out of a corner, and have NO evidence that helps...:)
> > >
> >
> > There is no corner. You have presented nothing the least bit compelling.
>
>
> Well you have to say that, you're not able to admit error. You will go
> to the silliest extremes to avoid having to admit the many errors you
> commit constantly.
>

I've admitted my errors in the past on those rare occasions when I make
them. You never admit yours. That would be a full time job.

[mainframetech]

It varies. There isn't any one number that applies to all cases. Think it through! The point it that a good majority takes precedence in most cases. In the case of the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, 39+ is plenty enough. In the case of the 6 who saw the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the limo were enough to be believed. The case where the bullet hole was seen in the right forehead/temple area had at least 7 witnesses to the wound, inclusing Pierre Finck.

> > > > > > Apparently you've found yourself at the end of your rope and can't find
> > > > > > any answers to the timings problem that proved that Oswald didn't fire
> > > > > > from the TSBD, so you've gone off and tried to change the subject and get
> > > > > > in some other argument to hopefully forget that you were stuck in a
> > > > > > corner, and no amount of made up bull would get you out...:)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You've presented no timing problems because you have been unable to
> > > > > establish with precision where Oswald or anyone else was seen at a
> > > > > particular time. When you are able to do so, get back to us.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL! "us"? You've decided no one can speak intelligently for
> > > > themselves, so now you're going to do it for them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, I think other people can speak intelligently.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Then why do you think you have to speak for them?
>
> I don't. I speak for me.
>

Thne don't use the word "us" then. It sends the wrong message.

> > You're the last
> > person to be speaking for others with the sheer number of errors you make!
> >
>
> I don't pretend to speak for others even when I am right which is most of
> the time.
>

See? An error already!

> > > > I repeat, as you knew I would, that EXACT times are NOT needed in this
> > > > case, since once we know that Oswald is in the lunchroom, and 2 men with a
> > > > gun were seen in the window after that but before the shooting, there's no
> > > > way that Oswald will ever get into that window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can repeat it as often as you like. It's still bullshit.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not as close to the bull's butt as the silliness you introduce into the
> > conversation. I've proved that your attempt to demand exact times is a
> > smokescreen.
>
> So why did you claim to know an exact time in another thread. Don't make the mistake of denying you did that.
>

I did not "claim" it, I mentioned it in passing and took it back when you whined about it. go see for yourself.

> > Time to give it up and admit that Oswald wasn't at the
> > window and the '2 men with a gun' were.
> >
>
> You're right. He was at that window by himself and by the time JFK
> arrived, he had the whole floor to himself.
>

You've lost it again! The '2 men' were in plenty of time for JFK to come by and for them to shoot at him. Oswad was nowhere near the 6th floor, as I've been saying to you for years. He was shown to be in the lunchroom. You've begun to say ridiculous things as predicted by me.

> >
> >
> > > > This must be terribly depressing for you. To not be able to fake your
> > > > way out of a corner, and have NO evidence that helps...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is no corner. You have presented nothing the least bit compelling.
> >
> >
> > Well you have to say that, you're not able to admit error. You will go
> > to the silliest extremes to avoid having to admit the many errors you
> > commit constantly.
> >
>
> I've admitted my errors in the past on those rare occasions when I make
> them. You never admit yours. That would be a full time job.

You will be here for that full time job, so hang in there.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 10:20:14 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > So tell us how man witnesses you need before you can say they couldn't
> > have all made the same mistake.
> >
> It varies. There isn't any one number that applies to all cases. Think it through! The point it that a good majority takes precedence in most cases. In the case of the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, 39+ is plenty enough. In the case of the 6 who saw the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the limo were enough to be believed. The case where the bullet hole was seen in the right forehead/temple area had at least 7 witnesses to the wound, inclusing Pierre Finck.
>

So you have sliding standards to accomodate whatever you need at a
particular time.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! It's not based omn my "need". It's based on what are the
numbers and what is the situation. In some situations less witnesses are
still viable, and others, more.

Chris

[bigdog]

Like I said, you have a sliding standard.

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! Not a "sliding standard" a vetting method that allows for
different situations. The standard is always the same.

Chris

[bigdog]

You wrote, "It varies". That is a sliding standard.

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! Here I go having to correct your mistakes! You can have
various levels of vetting, such as looking up something on the internet,
or sending away for information from a police department, or any number of
levels of depth. Each level may have conncted to it certain things to do
dependign on waht is learned. The levels and whart is done are fixed and
do not change or "slide".

Chris

[bigdog]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 4:21:24 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 8:31:12 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:10:28 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:20:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:45:56 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:40:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 10:20:14 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So tell us how man witnesses you need before you can say they couldn't
> > > > > > > > have all made the same mistake.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It varies. There isn't any one number that applies to all cases. Think it through! The point it that a good majority takes precedence in most cases. In the case of the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, 39+ is plenty enough. In the case of the 6 who saw the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the limo were enough to be believed. The case where the bullet hole was seen in the right forehead/temple area had at least 7 witnesses to the wound, inclusing Pierre Finck.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you have sliding standards to accomodate whatever you need at a
> > > > > > particular time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! It's not based omn my "need". It's based on what are the
> > > > > numbers and what is the situation. In some situations less witnesses are
> > > > > still viable, and others, more.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, you have a sliding standard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG again! Not a "sliding standard" a vetting method that allows for
> > > different situations. The standard is always the same.
> > >
> >
> > You wrote, "It varies". That is a sliding standard.
>
>
>
> WRONG again! Here I go having to correct your mistakes! You can have
> various levels of vetting,

i.e. a sliding scale

> such as looking up something on the internet,
> or sending away for information from a police department, or any number of
> levels of depth. Each level may have conncted to it certain things to do
> dependign on waht is learned. The levels and whart is done are fixed and
> do not change or "slide".
>

In your opening sentence you said "You can have various levels of vetting"
and you closed by saying the levels are fixed. Sure sounds like a sliding
scale to me.

[mainframetech]

Obviously you have little knowledge of sliding scales then.

Chris