Lots of questions for both sides
Rich Fisher
with the JFK assassination for several years. Regardless of which side
of the issue you fall, the sheer amount of speculation and unknown if
utterly mind boggling.
When I first started doing my own research (about 8 years ago) I
believed there was some level of coverup. Over the years I have tried
to be balanced in my consumation of information and have read books
from both Posner and Marrs, watched several documentaries, dozens of
times and often hit the major internet sites, like John McAdams
excellent JFK LN site.
With all that said and given that there are several different
conspiracy theories (many of which have been debunked). I am curious
as to what the prevailing wisdom is among those that still believe
that Oswald was not the only shooter. While such theories as the
french connection, Garrison / Clay Shaw and the three tramps (charles
harrison included) have been debunked for the most part, others seem
to have some steam left. Which ones are these?
Even as I now consider myself someone who believes that Oswald was the
only killer, some issues still give me pause, even in spite of what I
have read to refute those questions, namely:
- The single bullet theory, this still seems like a stretch to believe
that one bullet did this much damage and had that trajectory.
- What is the motivation for men like Cyril Wecht and Fletcher Prouty
to say the things they have said.
- Why were there so many open windows that day in Dallas?
- I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
- I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
reference to this?
Additionally, I cannot understand while some conspiracy theorists
still believe despite evidence to the contrary:
- Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
Zapruder film.
- Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
- Grassy knoll, to me the shot clearly HAD to come from behind given
the wound we see in the Zapruder film....so how could a shot have come
from the knoll?
Would love to see some feedback.
Thank you,
Rich
Ecagetx
for me re-posting my "THIRTY ONE POINTS" why
Oswald did it. Although none of the Mods have ever
objected to posting this much compelling evidence at
once, there are at least 2 hard-core CTers (WO an
explanation of their *own* btw..) who really freak-out
over the list below. Their "rebuttals" range from,
"Ed this is getting old" to "I still think there's
something fishy.."
Rich please keep in mind, even the infamous "Ruby
photo" would *not* convict by itself wo supporting
evidence/collaboration. (A fact many are unaware
of btw..)
****************************
Hopefully new researchers will consider the ENTIRE
PICTURE the evidence "puzzle parts" present when
put together and viewed as one overall highly
persuasive picture.
****************************
Look at all the pieces of the puzzle as investigators
do. If one chooses to *isolate* each point and
determine that "this alone will not convict," they will
be correct.
HOWEVER if the entire picture these 31 pieces of
evidence present in it's entirety is considered, the
preponderance of the overall picture is quite
persuasive:
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots
above/near them.
3) A man at least similar in appearance to Oswald or
shooter is seen on 6th floor w weapon.
4) Oswald prints on MC.
5) MC rifle found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering
wo paying.
13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Dallas Police
Officer JD Tippit.
15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." (A lie.)
16)Oswald could not effectively explain to Police why he
took pistol to TT.
17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than
Friday.
18)Oswald took long bwn bulky paper bag to work w him
on 11-22-63AM.
19)Both Frazier & Randle confirm seeing Oswald w a
long bulky bwn bag on 11-22-63 morning.
20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bulky bag
contained curtain rods.*
21)Curtain rods never found.*
22)Oswald denies to DPD that he ever told Frazier he
had curtain rods in long bwn bag.*
23)Oswald claims Frazier is "lying" about both the long
bwn paper bag, and the "curtain rod" story as well.
24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn
paper bag.
24a) Fibers from Oswald's shirt on his MC rifle..
25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical
evidence (Fragments *behind* sinus cavity, clearly
established (proof) the shots came from behind.
26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only
one not present at TSBD role-call.
27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD:
Bus, departure from bus, transfer to cab, cab driver
instructed to drop off Oswald 1 blk south of his
boarding house. (No accomplices to Oswald TSBD
departure.)
28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, pulls
a loaded revolver.
29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him
at arrest.
30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the
entire series) of BY photo(s) - Another lie.
31) Oswald had motives:
a) He was pro Cuba
b) He perceived Kennedy to be anti Cuba..
c) Oswald was anti *establishment* and anti-America.
d) Kennedy was the exact opposite
e) Oswald had a history of rebellion against
regimented authority.
f) He was also a nut.
Please consider the ENTIRE PICTURE.
Ed Cage MAR261713
> Subject: Lots of questions for both sides
> From: chargerr...@yahoo.com (Rich Fisher)
> Date: 3/26/2004 5:16 PM Central Standard Time
> Message-id: <c6e8c0b7.04032...@posting.google.com>
Card53
>only killer, some issues still give me pause, even in spite of what I
>have read to refute those questions, namely:
We must be kindred spirits, Rich. Everything you wrote about yourself
applies to me as well, although I've been interested in the case for more
than 40 years. I was only eight when JFK was shot, but I can clearly
remember that day and several events from the weekend that followed.
>- The single bullet theory, this still seems like a stretch to believe
>that one bullet did this much damage and had that trajectory.
I have some problems with Posner's book*, but his explanation of this
works for me. (Gee, I wonder if anyone around here will disagree with me
on this? ;)) The head of the bullet never came in contact with bone, the
bullet tumbled and entered Connally at a vertical angle, therefore the
deformation was to the sides of the bullet rather than the point. Other
tests have shown that it's possible for a bullet to emerge in such a way,
although it is a rare occurance. In other words it was a fluke, but flukes
happen now and then. That's why they're called flukes.
What I can't buy is the planted-bullet-on-the-stretcher theory. How would
conspirators know how many bullets would be recovered? If they'd thought
about it for two seconds, they'd have realized that they might be planting
evidence of conspiracy.
(*Say, what ever happened to Vince Bugliosi's long-promised anti-Posner,
pro-LN book?)
>- What is the motivation for men like Cyril Wecht and Fletcher Prouty
>to say the things they have said.
I believe Wecht is a good man and a skilled pathologist who won't let go
of a wrong idea. And I believe he's fallen into the trap of many CTs:
he's devoted a good part of his life to the JFK case and attained some
fame for it, so it's tough to move on. The Kennedy assassination has
become its own cottage industry. For CTs to change their minds would be
like admitting their life's work has been for naught.
As for Prouty, let's just say he's one of the many oddballs seeking his 15
minutes.
>- Why were there so many open windows that day in Dallas?
Presidential security then wasn't what it is now. Changing times call for
stricter measures. We're 40 years from the time of JFK's assasination,
which itself was about 60 years from the time when a President could be
shot by someone in a receiving line (William McKinley/Leon Czolgosz).
Czolgosz couldn't have done what he did in 1963, and Oswald couldn't have
done what he did in 2004.
>- I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
>inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
Too general a question. There were inaccuracies and oversights, but they
got the big picture right. We need some specifics here.
>- I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
>thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
>reference to this?
Somewhere out there is a website on which an amateur investigator gets off
three shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano in about 4.5 seconds. He doesn't
have much experience with a gun, but he manages to hit what seems to be
about a 3' x 3' target each time. The site includes a video of him doing
it. I can't find the URL right now, but I'll post it if and when I do.
>Additionally, I cannot understand while some conspiracy theorists
>still believe despite evidence to the contrary:
See above. It's hard to let go of something to which you've devoted much
of your life.
>- Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
>back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
>Zapruder film.
Careful, here come the Z-film alterationists. CTs have relied on
testimony from emergency-room doctors who were in no position to make a
clear diagnosis. JFK's head was a mess, his body was lying face-up, and
the doctors reported what they thought they saw. These men were not
pathologists or ballistics experts, and they did a horrible job in terms
of accurately reporting and recording the details. I believe they did a
competent job of trying to save the President's life, futile though such
efforts may have been, but pretty much botched everything else down the
line.
If you believe there was more than one gunman, then you have to make the
evidence fit accordingly. The Parkland doctors have given the CTs
something to latch onto in that respect.
>- Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
I always thought this was such silliness, even when I counted myself among
the CTs. If you look hard, you can also see a teddy bear and a donkey
among the leaves and shadows.
>- Grassy knoll, to me the shot clearly HAD to come from behind given
>the wound we see in the Zapruder film....so how could a shot have come
>from the knoll?
It couldn't have, period. He was shot in the right rear of his head, the
right side of his head exploded, his body fell away from the explosion.
I don't need an advanced degree in physics or intensive study of the "jet
effect" to understand what seems to me a rather simple concept.
If the evidence suggested there was indeed a grassy-knoll gunman, there
would be a contigent of critics jumping all over the existing evidence:
"But where's the exit wound on the left side of his head? Why wasn't
Jackie hit?", and so forth.
I don't claim to be an expert on the case, but I think I have a basic
understanding of logical fallacies and scientific method. The main reason
I switched sides over the years is that I saw CTs violating these basic
principles in an increasingly desperate manner. That said, there are some
CTs who have done some thoughtful and valuable research and are by no
means crackpots. I may disagree with them, but they've earned my respect
nonetheless.
John L.
Glenn Sarlitto
with a MANNLICHER-CARCANO....
http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000008.htm
Also:
Has anyone here who has visited Chad's site in this regard
notice an echo of sorts even from the open field?
It is most noticeable for the last shot. Closing your eyes
and listening only will help in this regard.
Regards,
Glenn
"Rich Fisher" <chargerr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6e8c0b7.04032...@posting.google.com...
AnthonyMarsh
Cyril Wecht is a professional, a well-regarded forensic pathologist. The
evidence does not add up for him as Oswald being the lone assassin.
Fletcher Prouty was a muckraker and wanted to put his two cents in.
> - Why were there so many open windows that day in Dallas?
>
The weather was nice. About 65 degrees after an early rain.
> - I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
> inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
>
They tripped over their own feet in their attempt to whitewash. They
even said so in internal memos that some day people might see the
evidence for themselves and realize it contradicted the WC position.
> - I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
> thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
> reference to this?
>
For one, the HSCA investigation. Someone can fire two shots from a
similar rifle within 1.66 seconds. The problem is aiming. Plus Oswald's
rifle jammed.
> Additionally, I cannot understand while some conspiracy theorists
> still believe despite evidence to the contrary:
>
> - Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
> back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
> Zapruder film.
>
There was no wound on the back of his head. We have now seen the autopsy
photos for ourselves. The only wound we can see was the entrance wound
in the front of his head.
> - Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
>
Badge Man is an optical illusion. Not the only one. There was also the
Classic gunman leaning against a station wagon and the shooter in the
bushes at Z-413.
> - Grassy knoll, to me the shot clearly HAD to come from behind given
> the wound we see in the Zapruder film....so how could a shot have come
> from the knoll?
>
The trajectory at Z-313 is clear. Remember that the DPD sharpshooter had
no problem firing test shots into sandbags down on the street from the
grassy knoll.
> Would love to see some feedback.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Rich
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Barb Junkkarinen
[snip]
>>- Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
>>back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
>>Zapruder film.
>
>Careful, here come the Z-film alterationists.
Wrong. No a quite a monority of the CT camp. Most reasonable and
kowledge people (CT and LN alike) acknowledge/realize that the Z-film
is not the best evidence as regards any of the wounds to rither man.
As for a shot to the rear of the head, many Cts, like me for example,
acknowledge that as well ... the evidence is clear on that, imo. While
there remains a possibility of a near simultaneous shot to the head
from the front/side, there is no anatomic evidence of that as far as
we know.
> CTs have relied on
>testimony from emergency-room doctors who were in no position to make a
>clear diagnosis.
For starters, JFK was not treated by "emergency room doctors" .... he
was treated by a variey of specialists, including the chief of
neursurgery.
The diagnosis was quite clear: the man had a fatal head wound from a
gunshot to the head ... which is exactly what they reported.. Of
course one wouldn't really need to be a doctor of any sort to realize
that.
> JFK's head was a mess, his body was lying face-up, and
>the doctors reported what they thought they saw.
They reported what they did see ... independently of one another, for
the medical-legal record .... interesting isn't it how corrborative
they are of one another .... and are you another LN who ignores the
FACT that what the Parkland personnel reported as regards a nasty
gaping wound on the right rear of JFK's head benind his ear was
corroborated by the autopsists .... you are familiar with their
measurements, drawings, etc made during the autopsy ... right? And
with their report?
The area where the gaping wound was reported is quite visible, as has
been demonstrated, when a person is lying face up on a firm surface
.... particulary in a chin up position as one is when resuscitative
attempts are taking place.
> These men were not
>pathologists or ballistics experts, and they did a horrible job in terms
>of accurately reporting and recording the details.
Baloney. Do you sleep with Case Closed under your pillow?<g> Sorry,
but you are toeing the line, almost word for word, as many people
whose sole, or nearly sole, knowledge on the evidence came from that
book.
No one would expect to find a pthologist assessing and treating in an
emergency situation. Many of the doctores who treated JFK were quite
familiar with gunshot wounds .... it's not their job to be ballistics
experts though. It WAS their job to assess and treat ... and report.
And they did that well.
Have you read their first day notes for the medical-legal record,
their reports to Price, their testimonies before the WC? Not a snippet
here or there, but the whole deals? If not -- do, or you are woefully
unprepared to state what they did or did not do, could or could not
see, how well they noted what they saw, etc.
> I believe they did a
>competent job of trying to save the President's life, futile though such
>efforts may have been, but pretty much botched everything else down the
>line.
For instance, what did they "botch" pray tell? IMO, and in that of
many CTs, Perry's initiall impression of the throat wound being one of
entrance was incorrect. That's not "botch"ing anything.
>
>If you believe there was more than one gunman, then you have to make the
>evidence fit accordingly. The Parkland doctors have given the CTs
>something to latch onto in that respect.
Baloney. Though that is the general LN line. Parkland reported what
they saw ... first hand, up close and personal like, and in cluding a
brief but specific exam of the head wound by the chief of
neurosurgery. You think this neurosugeon incompetent to note where on
a person's head he sees a fatal wound ... and then pronounces the
patient dead?
LNs in general defend against a nasty wound in the right rear of the
President's head because they equate it with an exit wound meaning a
shot from the front. Silly. Most of the right side of JFK's skull was
literally blown off ... it virtually exploded. Parkland didn't have
the opportunity to explore or see the full extent of the wound ...
they wouldn't be expected to. That's what the autopsy did .... and it
revealed, if you have bothered to read the primary source documents, a
back to front wound with an entrance near the eop that, as measured at
autopsy, measured 10cm wide )from 1" right lateral and slightly above
the eop) by 17cm long .... from 1" right of and slightly above the eop
forward. That decidedly includes the area, right rear behind the ear,
where Parkland doctors reported seing a gaping wound.
JFK's wounds were seen up close and personally by people in three
locations .... first in DP where Clint Hill noted as he hung over the
back seat all the way to Parkland, a big wound to the right rear
portion of the presidents skull; at Parkland, where multiple medical
professionals stood at the gurney and worked on him fo over a half
hour, and who were corroborative of one another in reporting a nasty
gaping wound to the right rear of the president's head; and at
Bethesda, where three autopsists described, drew, measured and
reported a wound that included the same anatomic territory as noted by
those at Parkland and by Clint Hill in DP.
I'd be more than happy to discuss the medical evidence with you. :-)
[......]
Bests,
Barb :-)
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Try this for the number of times it takes to click off 3 rounds
> with a MANNLICHER-CARCANO....
>
> http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000008.htm
>
What I like best is when a WC defender accidentally confirms exactly
what I have been saying for so many years. Take a look at Chad's site.
Look at his target which he shot at 85 yards. Notice how badly he
missed. Then he later found out that the iron sights are preset at 200
yards (actually 200 or 300 meters, as the Italians did not use English
measures). And so many WC defenders had been doubting me when I said
that the iron sights were preset for 300 meters. Now, why didn't Chad
zero in the rifle for 85 yards? (hint, impossible to change the sights
on that rifle).
Now, notice where his shot hit high and to the right. Just as I have
been saying for years, and which WC defenders have been denying. Now,
take a photo of JFK from the back and superimpose it so the back wound
is 1-3/4 inches to the right of the bullseye. Now, where would that miss
go? Over the top of JFK's right shoulder and into Connally's right
armpit.
And as I have said many times, the problem is not in shooting that
quickly. The problem is in sighting in for each shot.
Just mechanically reloading and shooting as quickly as possible, almost
anyone can get off three shots under 6 seconds. But if you actually try
to aim and hit a target (stationary or moving) it adds a little time.
Also, a small caveat. Chad was not using Oswald's rifle. His rifle may
have been in much better condition than Oswald's was. Chad did not
report any jams, whereas all other testing has reported frequent jams.
Also notice that Chad says (correctly) that he could use either the
scope or the iron sights and that the scope was not in the way of using
the iron sights.
John Blubaugh
"Ecagetx" <eca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040326202533...@mb-m24.aol.com...
Oh, please, not the dreaded 31 points yet again. How many times will you
insist on posting this same drivel?
JB
B Collins
Good video of the Mannlicher-Carcano firing.
Some observations:
1. The rifle is actually quieter than I thought it would be. I was
expecting a "cracking" noise - instead, what I actually hear is more
of a muted report....
2. There's a puff of smoke coming out the end of the barrel after
each shot.
3. The ejecting shells fly directly to the right of the shooter
towards the camera about 6 ft (4 ft? 8ft?) away.
To view the video better, once it loads, right click it, "save target
as" and save it to desktop (or whatever).
Barry
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<4064...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
Glenn Sarlitto
"""Look at his target which he shot at 85 yards. Notice how badly he
> missed.""""
He missed the BULLSEYE. Didn't miss the target. Not bad for the first
time. I would say....not bad at all.
You missed the point about that exercise of his.
On another note, Chad could confirm this and others who have shot a
Carcano... QUITE the ADRENALIN FLOW. It was for me.
That is the one item that can never be duplicated....the RUSH! The ZONED
IN FEELING Oswald had.
Funny, last December some people spent millions to duplicate the WRIGHT
Brother's first flight. They Failed. Does that mean it never happened?
Glenn
PS.......What you have is DOUBT. What you don't have is REASONABLE DOUBT.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:4065DA2F...@quik.com...
AnthonyMarsh
>
> >Even as I now consider myself someone who believes that Oswald was the
> >only killer, some issues still give me pause, even in spite of what I
> >have read to refute those questions, namely:
>
> We must be kindred spirits, Rich. Everything you wrote about yourself
> applies to me as well, although I've been interested in the case for more
> than 40 years. I was only eight when JFK was shot, but I can clearly
> remember that day and several events from the weekend that followed.
>
> >- The single bullet theory, this still seems like a stretch to believe
> >that one bullet did this much damage and had that trajectory.
>
> I have some problems with Posner's book*, but his explanation of this
> works for me. (Gee, I wonder if anyone around here will disagree with me
> on this? ;)) The head of the bullet never came in contact with bone, the
> bullet tumbled and entered Connally at a vertical angle, therefore the
> deformation was to the sides of the bullet rather than the point. Other
The bullet hit Connally at a slight angle, but the head still went in
head first. The bullet was not going sideways when it hit.
That makes no sense at all. Hinckley did a close up attempt with a
revolver, even after lessons were supposed learned from the Kennedy
assassination. But the quick reactions by the SS helped save him,
reactions which became instinctive after years of specialized training.
What about the attempts on the Chinese recently? That seems to be a long
shot from a rifle and the assassin was almost successful and got away.
> >- I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
> >inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
>
> Too general a question. There were inaccuracies and oversights, but they
> got the big picture right. We need some specifics here.
>
> >- I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
> >thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
> >reference to this?
>
> Somewhere out there is a website on which an amateur investigator gets off
> three shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano in about 4.5 seconds. He doesn't
> have much experience with a gun, but he manages to hit what seems to be
> about a 3' x 3' target each time. The site includes a video of him doing
> it. I can't find the URL right now, but I'll post it if and when I do.
>
Even YOU could fire three shots within 6 seconds. And maybe even hit the
target once at 50 yards without aiming.
You need something to have the head fall to the rear from a shot from
the rear.
> If the evidence suggested there was indeed a grassy-knoll gunman, there
> would be a contigent of critics jumping all over the existing evidence:
> "But where's the exit wound on the left side of his head? Why wasn't
> Jackie hit?", and so forth.
>
> I don't claim to be an expert on the case, but I think I have a basic
> understanding of logical fallacies and scientific method. The main reason
> I switched sides over the years is that I saw CTs violating these basic
> principles in an increasingly desperate manner. That said, there are some
> CTs who have done some thoughtful and valuable research and are by no
> means crackpots. I may disagree with them, but they've earned my respect
> nonetheless.
>
> John L.
Doug Gosha
>>
>> Try this for the number of times it takes to click off 3 rounds
>> with a MANNLICHER-CARCANO....
>>
>> http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000008.htm
>>
Of course, Oswald did "miss" 2 out of 3 times in Dallas.
Doug
AnthonyMarsh
Doesn't it bother you at all when WC defenders misstate the evidence?
Let me give you an example. He is what one WC defender says in his book:
"In addition, in 1977, reconstruction tests for the HSCA showed
that, using the iron sights vs. the scope, it was possible to fire
two shots in only 1.66 seconds (three shots in 3.33 seconds) and
still hit the target. The results of those tests made the assassin's
'feat' of firing three shots (two with accuracy) in such a short
time seem much less difficult to accomplish."
_____________________________________________
In the first place, the reconstruction tests referred to were conducted
on August 20, 1978, not in 1977.
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/acoustic.htm
Secondly, the 'reconstruction' tests were not reconstruction tests. There
was never any attempt in that 1978 test to duplicate the shooting sequence
from 1963. The tests were run ONLY to make recordings of test shots to
match against the DPD tape to try to find shots on the tape.
Third, it was Blakey and Blakey alone who fired two shots in only 1.66
seconds.
Fourth, two shots within 1.66 seconds does not mean that three shots can
be fired within 3.33 seconds.
Fifth, Blakey was not aiming at a target and did not hit a target. His
only attempt was to reload as quickly as possible in order to prove that
the acoustics finding of two shots within 1.66 seconds was theoretically
possible. Yes, it is possible to MISS the target entirely when firing two
shots within 1.66 seconds when you don't even bother to aim the rifle at
the target.
It was not the HSCA or the WC critics which created the time restraint for
three shots. It was the WC itself. It offered one scenario where the first
shot was fired no earlier than Z-210 and the last shot fired at Z-313.
That gave them only 5.6 seconds for all three shots. They then tested to
see if that was theoretically possible with OSWALD's rifle. It was.
clark wilkins
> for me re-posting my "THIRTY ONE POINTS" why
> Oswald did it.
Oh! Boy!
Here we go again!
>Although none of the Mods have ever
> objected to posting this much compelling evidence at
> once,
If it's so compelling, why does no one agree with it?
> there are at least 2 hard-core CTers (WO an
> explanation of their *own* btw..) who really freak-out
> over the list below. Their "rebuttals" range from,
> "Ed this is getting old" to "I still think there's
> something fishy.."
Ed is preparing everyone for his 31 points of "evidence" to be summarily
dismissed for the garbage that it is. I don't know who the other two are
he's referring to, but I think it includes anyone with an IQ over 40
points.
>
> Rich please keep in mind, even the infamous "Ruby
> photo" would *not* convict by itself wo supporting
> evidence/collaboration. (A fact many are unaware
> of btw..)
>
We're all being prepared for the simple fact that Ed's 31 points is
insufficient to convict.
> ****************************
> Hopefully new researchers will consider the ENTIRE
> PICTURE the evidence "puzzle parts" present when
> put together and viewed as one overall highly
> persuasive picture.
> ****************************
>
And finally dismiss it as meaningless?
> Look at all the pieces of the puzzle as investigators
> do. If one chooses to *isolate* each point and
> determine that "this alone will not convict," they will
> be correct.
No kidding!
> HOWEVER if the entire picture these 31 pieces of
> evidence present in it's entirety is considered, the
> preponderance of the overall picture is quite
> persuasive:
As we shall see, it is quite persuasive as we discover that Ed argues for
conspiracy by showing 31 different ways, that HE HAS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
THAT LHO TRANSPORTED THE RIFLE TO THE TSBD.
When he's done we can all only wonder how many shooters he has inside that
building...
But let's let his list speak for itself:
>
> 1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD?
2) How do you know there were "3 shots", Ed? Prove it.
> 2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 shots
> above/near them.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD?
2) And here is the reliability of Ed's "ear witnesses:
One could hear the bolt working and the shells hitting the floor above
him. After which they heard no one move above them. They held a
conversation on whether shots had been fired or a car had backfired. Still
no one moved above them. Only one mentioned he thought the shots had been
fired from inside the building (Not three as you say above). Still no one
moves above them. They notice powder in Bonnie's hair and advise him not
to shake it out. Still, no one has moved above them. They can even see
light coming down from above them though the cracks in the sixth floor but
they cannot see or hear anyone above them.
In fact, they didn't hear anyone "drop a rifle" above them either in order
for the scope to become misaligned, did they?
How much time can Oswald sit above them, not moving, and still beat
Officer Baker to the second floor lunchroom?
Or are your "earwitnesses" wrong?
And you left this out. It's Bonnie Ray Williams statement taken on 11/22/63:
QUOTE
.. I heard 2 shots
You also left out that one of the 5th floor earwitnesses said one of the
shots sounded as if it came from below his position and from his left.
And you left out that the the four lady earwitnesses on the fourth floor,
who were unanimous in their impressions that the sounds did not come from
above them but rather they came from below and to their right, i.e. the
GK, overpass area. Don't the four fourth floor earwitnesses negate the
three fifth floor witnesses? If not, why not?
And let's look at the changing stories one of your three witnesses, Harold
Norman gave:
On 11/26/63 he told the FBI after the first shot:
"...he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the
roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were
falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired
after he had pulled his head back in from the window." (CD5p26)
It was over a week after the FBI interview that Norman told the Secret
Service on 12/4/63:
"I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could
hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the
bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling
of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots
was directly above me". (CD87) ((SS491)
The story has changed two different ways. This time he had heard the
pinging of the shells hitting the floor and the cycling of the rifle above
him. That's not what he told the FBI. He also said "dust fell from the
ceiling". Again, that's not what he told the FBI. He told them "he stuck
his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see
nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him."
By the time he appeared before the WC on March 24, 1964, he then
remembered *saying* to the others at the time that he heard the shell and
rifle sounds from above, he denied seeing any falling dust but said he saw
some in Williams' hair, and didn't remember ever putting his head out the
window nor the falling dirt that he had told the FBI about.(3H191-196)
Mr. BALL. I have one question.
On the 26th of November, an FBI agent named Kreutzer advises us in a
report that he talked to you. Do you remember that?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You remember?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I remember talking to him. I don't know his name.
Mr. BALL. He reports that you told him that you heard a shot and that you
stuck your head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but
could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above
you. Did you tell him that?
Mr. NORMAN. I don't recall telling him that.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever put your head out the window?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I don't remember ever putting my head out the window.
Mr. BALL. And he reports that you stated that two additional shots were
fired after you pulled your head back in from the window. Do you remember
telling him that?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I don't.
Bonnie Ray Williams also joined the parade. After it was Norman who said
the debris fell on him, on 3/19/64, Williams tells the FBI that "I looked
up when little pieces of cement hit me on the head, but I saw no one."
Williams repeated this story to the Warren Commission:
"[The shots] shook the building, the side we were on. Cement fell on my
head. Cement, gravel, dirt or something, from the old building....
[Harold] said, 'You got something on your head.' And then James Jarman
said, 'Yes, man, don't you brush it out.' But after I got downstairs I
think I brushed it out anyway." (v3p175) Williams, not Norman, now
becomes the official Debris, or Cement, Man.
And what did Norman, who first told the FBI and then the Secret Service
the debris fell on him, tell the Warren Commission?
Norman: I didn't see any falling, but I saw some in Bonnie Ray Williams'
hair. I believe Jarman told him that it was in his hair first. (p192)
Norman then denied seeing any falling debris (page 196). But Norman's
denial was contradicted by Jarman's statement of 11/24/63 in which he said
Norman had stated "something had fallen from above him..."
But then Jarman, not to be left out the circle of changing stories, THEN
changed hs story too. Although he told the FBI the debris fell on Norman,
to the WC he said it fell on Williams:
"I noticed that Bonnie Ray had a few debris in his head... like some come
off a brick or plaster or something (p204).... I got to thinking about all
the debris on Bonnie Ray's head, & so I told Hank, "That shot probably did
come from up over us." (p211)
Norman told the Warren Commission that he told the others the shots came
from above them:
Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything as to where they thought the shots came
from?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, I don't recall of either one of them saying they
thoughtwhere it came from.
Mr. BALL. But You did?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And you said you thought it came from where? Mr. NORMAN. Above
where we were, above us.
So Norman said this to tyhe others did he? Here's Jarman's testimony on
that:
Mr. BALL. Did Norman say anything else that you remember?
Mr. JARMAN. He said that he was sure that the shot came from inside the
building because he had been used to guns and all that, and he said it
didn't sound like it was too far off anyway. And so
we ran down to the west side of the building....
Gee, Ed? Where did Jarman say that Norman said the shots came from above
them? Norman said the shots came "nearby" and "inside" the building "and so
(they) ran down to the west side of the building...."
And where did Jarman place the shots?
Representative FORD. Where did you think the sound of the first shot came
from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN. Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below.
That is what I thought.
Is "below" "above" him, Ed?
How good are your three witnesses, Ed?
Was Norman lying to the FBI and secret Service when he said debris fell on
him, or was he lying to the WC when he said it it didn't in direct
contradiction to Jarman? And was Jarman lying when he said it fell on
Norman to the FBI or was he lying when he told the WC it fell on Williams?
It would appear that your three witnesses first placed the debris on
Norman and then, BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, changed it to Williams. This is a
matter of historical record. They are proven LIARS.
They couldn't even keep their lies straight. Here is Norman's testimony to
the HSCA:
HSCA: Did there come a time when Jarman told you there was something in
your hair?
Norman: Yes. (page 8)
> 3) A man at least similar in appearance to Oswald or
> shooter is seen on 6th floor w weapon.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) This is evidence of Oswald's innocence:
The man seen at the window stayed at the window after the shots too. Just
like Ed's three earwitnesses said.
So, if it's Oswald standing in the window and not moving for Brennan to
see and for three men on the fifth floor not to hear him move on a floor
with light showing through it and able to transmit the sound of a rifle
bolt or a shell being ejected, then how did Oswald leave the sixth floor
in time to meet Officer Baker on the second floor some 90 seconds later?
Oswald can't stay at the window, not move, and still beat Baker to the 2nd
floor. The WC proved this with a stopwatch.
Apparently, Ed is making a case for two Oswalds. The "innocent" Oswald on
the second floor lunchroom and "guilty" one still standing at the sixth
floor window and not moving.
> 4) Oswald prints on MC.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) His prints should be on the rifle:
It's his rifle. His prints should be on it. What shouldn't be on it are the
prints of someone else such as the print James Olmstead alledgedly found.
I would like to hear your explanation for that possible print?
> 5) MC rifle found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed gets his first fact right. But guess what?
This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
> 6) Oswald prints on SN box.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) His prints should be there:
He worked on the sixth floor. He routinely handled sixth floor boxes.
Convicted murderer Malcolm Wallace's fingerprints were are also
identified. Did he work on the sixth floor? Did he routinely handle sixth
floor boxes? Did he even work at the TSBD?
> 7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) It's evidence Oswald handled a brown paperbag - a bag the FBI found no
evidence had ever contained a rifle.
> 8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Please produce 3 bullets that ballistics matched to the MC rifle
recovered. Can't be done. Ed returns to getting his facts wrong.
> 9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) It's his rifle. Why shouldn't it be purchased by him?
> 10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Where did you expect him to have it sent, Ed? To the sixth floor of the
TSBD?
> 11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) And, like all of Ed's evidence, it is not evidence Lee shot
JFK.
> 12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering
> wo paying.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed finally gets another fact right but, unfortunately it is not evidence
Lee shot JFK.
> 13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) It does explain why Oswald drew his pistol at the TT (Ed's item #12)
> 14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Dallas Police
> Officer JD Tippit.
1)This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) This explains again why Lee drew his pistol at the TT
> 15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." (A lie.)
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Does Ed seriously expect Oswald to claim ownership of the rifle found,
regardless of innocence or guilt?
> 16)Oswald could not effectively explain to Police why he
> took pistol to TT.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) The above is Ed's personal opinion. Lee answered the question. Can Ed
prove he was lying? No. In fact, if we look at Ed's evidence to this
point, the only thing he can prove is that Oswald owned the rifle. What he
doesn't show/prove is how that rifle got into the TSBD?
> 17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than
> Friday.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) And what would be the meaning if Oswald had gone on a Tuesday? or
Monday? Or November 9?
> 18)Oswald took long bwn bulky paper bag to work w him
> on 11-22-63AM.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) The bag was shown, using precise eyewitness measurements, to not
contain a rifle, disassembled or otherwise. In addition, the bag had been
folded to the very length the eyewitnesses described. The bag cannot be
folded along those crease marks while containing a rifle, disassembled or
otherwise. The FBI examined the bag for evidence it contained a rifle and
found none. Conclusion: There is no evidence the bag contained a rifle.
There is evidence it did not. Therefore, the rifle did not enter the TSBD
via the paperbag. So how did it get there?
Ed's evidence is that someone else brought the rifle into the TSBD. That's
a conspiracy.
> 19)Both Frazier & Randle confirm seeing Oswald w a
> long bulky bwn bag on 11-22-63 morning.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Both witnesses demonstrated the bag they saw Oswald carrying could not
possibly contain a rifle, disassembled or otherwise. Both witnesses were
confirmed in their measurements by two two FBI re-enactments and by the
fold marks found in the bag.
Ed has proven Lee did not bring the rifle into the TSBD on Friday morning.
Ed has shown that Lee did not have a prior opportunity to bring the rifle
into the TSBD. Ed has proven a conspiracy. So far, he has presented 19
points of evidence confirming conspiracy.
> 20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bulky bag
> contained curtain rods.*
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) He also told the police it contained his lunch.
> 21)Curtain rods never found.*
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) It proves only that Oswald was a liar. Ed has been shown his three
"earwitnesses" on the fifth floor to be liars. If lying is evidence of
guilt, evidently they were shooting at JFK too.
> 22)Oswald denies to DPD that he ever told Frazier he
> had curtain rods in long bwn bag.*
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Again, Ed makes the case that Norman, Williams, and Jarmen were also
shooting at JFK since they also lied to the authorities.
> 23)Oswald claims Frazier is "lying" about both the long
> bwn paper bag, and the "curtain rod" story as well.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) To Ed's reasoning though, it's more evidence that Jarmen, Williams, and
Norman were clearly shooting at JFK. Anyone believe this nonsense is
evidence? Ed does. Anyone who lies was blasting away at JFK if we accept
this reasoning.
> 24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn
> paper bag.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed, of course, has his facts wrong again as usual.
WR: "...Stombaugh was UNABLE to render an opinion that the fibers which
he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other
types of fibers present in the blanket were not found on the bag." WR 137
> 24a) Fibers from Oswald's shirt on his MC rifle..
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) From Stombaugh's testimony ""There is no doubt in my mind that these
fibers could have come from this shirt."
Do you see the word "COULD", Ed? Shouldn't your 24a) read "Fibers from
Oswald's shirt COULD have been on his MC rifle."?
Ed's errors continue...
> 25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical
> evidence (Fragments *behind* sinus cavity, clearly
> established (proof) the shots came from behind.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Jarmen., Williams, and Norman were also in the TSBD and, like Oswald,
had not brought rifles to work that day and, like Oswald, lied to the
authorities when questioned. Therefore, all four men were shooting at JFK.
Ed's proof? "Fragments *behind* sinus cavity, clearly established (proof)
the shots came from behind."
So, once again, Ed argues for conspiracy.
> 26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only
> one not present at TSBD role-call.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above statement
WRONG once again? The name Charles Givens comes to mind...
> 27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD:
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) If he planned to kill JFK, shouldn't his escape be better planned?
Like maybe not leave $ 170 with Marina that morning and keep only
$ 13 + for himself?
> Bus, departure from bus, transfer to cab, cab driver
> instructed to drop off Oswald 1 blk south of his
> boarding house. (No accomplices to Oswald TSBD
> departure.)
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) I thought Ed said his escape was ill planned?
> 28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, pulls
> a loaded revolver.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed repeats himself. This is item #12 on his list.
> 29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him
> at arrest.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed gets his facts wrong again. Oswald chose not to explain the card,
which was his legal right.
> 30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the
> entire series) of BY photo(s) - Another lie.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Evidence again that Jarmen, Williams, and Norman are also shooters.
> 31) Oswald had motives:
> a) He was pro Cuba
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Oswald was anti-communist and anti-Castro
> b) He perceived Kennedy to be anti Cuba.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Oswald stated under interrogation that JFK's death would have no impact
on US policies towards Cuba.
3) Oswald admired JFK and supported his policy on civil rights.
> c) Oswald was anti *establishment* and anti-America.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed just described every hippy draft dodger of the 60's. Were they all
shooting at JFK too? Ed keeps putting more and more shooters in that
building all the time.
> d) Kennedy was the exact opposite
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Kennedy was the exact opposite of General Walker who Lee did shoot at.
Please explain that?
> e) Oswald had a history of rebellion against
> regimented authority.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Anyone of the 57 other TSBD workers with a police record fits the above
description. More and more shooters, folks. Ed's got half of America in
that building, rifle in hand.
> f) He was also a nut.
1) This does not explain how the rifle entered the TSBD.
2) Ed's opinion only
>
> Please consider the ENTIRE PICTURE.
We have. You've posted this nonsense before and you've only successfully
proved a conspiracy. You can't show how the rifle got into the TSBD. You
even cited the evidence he didn't bring it in (The paperbag and the two
eyewitnesses - and you left off the third eyewitness). If Oswald didn't
bring it in then you have proved a conspiracy and that is the ONLY thing
your 31 points prove.
In the past I have challenged you that I can post as much or more evidence
that the paperbag contained the disassembled German battleship Bismark, or
a German Panzer tank, or a disassembled B-52 bomber recently retrurned
from Germany than you can post it contained a rifle.
I renew the challenge.
I'm waiting.
::Clark::
clark wilkins
rifle found in determining bolt times. One need only look up Robert
Frazier's testimony to the WC to get the fastest ever recorded bolt time
on Oswald's rifle. And Frazier, by the way, was trained in "speed
shooting", something Oswald was not. If the FBI testimony on the bolt time
of the rifle is not satisfactory to the reader, one can check the times
achieved by the expert riflemen the WC used to test the ACTUAL rifle.
If you are an LNer and would prefer to use incorrect bolt times taken on
different rifles, then please use the link below. Other fantasy sites are
also available upon request.
::Clark::
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4064...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
clark wilkins
> Rich Fisher wrote:
> >
>
> > - I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
> > thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
> > reference to this?
> >
>
> For one, the HSCA investigation. Someone can fire two shots from a
> similar rifle within 1.66 seconds. The problem is aiming. Plus Oswald's
> rifle jammed.
Let us not forget to add why the HSCA conducted the test on the second
rifle in the first place. They had a recording showing three shots fired
from behind, but two fired faster than Oswald's rifle could perform. Since
Oswald's rifle could not fire this fast, as has been proven, they opted to
test a second rifle in order to preclude a third gunman. They looked for,
and found, the fastest firing MC rifle in history - but declined to use
Oswald's actual rifle for the tests, even though it was available to them
(And even though they did fire it), since they knew it would fail.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
<SNIP>
clark wilkins
> with the JFK assassination for several years. Regardless of which side
> of the issue you fall, the sheer amount of speculation and unknown if
> utterly mind boggling.
>
> When I first started doing my own research (about 8 years ago) I
> believed there was some level of coverup. Over the years I have tried
> to be balanced in my consumation of information and have read books
> from both Posner and Marrs,
Those are extremists of both sides. Neither enjoys much credibility. I use
Marr's book for a paperweight and Posner's book is in the garbage can with
the rest of the trash.
Virtually any LN author but Posner (and the idiot that wrote "Mortal
Error") have decent credibility. The opposite is true of CT authors. Once
you get outside Newman, Scott, and Weisberg, you're in the equivelent of
the "Posner" territory of junk writers.
> watched several documentaries,
The CT ones are sensationalized.
The LN ones use rigged tests.
> dozens of
> times and often hit the major internet sites, like John McAdams
> excellent JFK LN site.
So now we know you're an LN.
>
> With all that said and given that there are several different
> conspiracy theories (many of which have been debunked). I am curious
> as to what the prevailing wisdom is among those that still believe
> that Oswald was not the only shooter. While such theories as the
> french connection, Garrison / Clay Shaw and the three tramps (charles
> harrison included) have been debunked for the most part, others seem
> to have some steam left. Which ones are these?
The flip side of that argument is what LN theory has not been debunked?
>
> Even as I now consider myself someone who believes that Oswald was the
> only killer, some issues still give me pause, even in spite of what I
> have read to refute those questions, namely:
>
> - The single bullet theory, this still seems like a stretch to believe
> that one bullet did this much damage and had that trajectory.
Yes. That is a problem. The Zapruder film does not support both men being
hit at the same time. Yet it also shows them being hit too close together
for Oswald to fire twice.
I have studied the Z film but only as a last resort. We have a human
tendency to see what we want to see (In statistics, it's referred to as
"skewing"). However, when I posted my results they were confirmed by a
second researcher and they demonstrate Connally was hit around Z227, which
is after JFK. Yet, at the same time, I found JFK was hit much earlier by a
different bullet - but perhaps from the same rifle. On the CT side of the
ledger, my frame analysis showed 4-5 shots fired, but probably four, the
fifth being a statistical anamoly. This prompted a debate with an LNer who
argued JBC was hit, not at Z227 but around Z222. IMO, the debate ended in
a draw. The difference of 5 frames is less than a third of a second - And
yet that 1/3 of a second is critical to both sides of the argument.
>
> - What is the motivation for men like Cyril Wecht and Fletcher Prouty
> to say the things they have said.
Wecht is a brilliant man. Prouty is not. Both believed in theirt
convictions. However, in spite of what the TV documentaries show, Wecht,
once he was allowed to see the X rays, went along with JFK being hit from
behind.
>
> - Why were there so many open windows that day in Dallas?
Because there was no law against it.
>
> - I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
> inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
Because it was a work produced under the influence of Nicholas Katzenbach.
Katzenbach wanted a report a convicting Oswald as the sole assassin (This
is not a secret. There are memos showing this was why a "blue ribbon"
commision was formed.). So the WC performed its purpose. Years later, the
HSCA was formed, this time to find a conspiracy and, sure enough, they
did. The WC had to get out a shovel, not so much as to hide what they had
been shown, but to hide what they had not been shown. Huge amounts of
information was withheld from the Commission in order to insure its
findings. Years later, some of that same information was withheld from the
HSCA. The ARRB was the first attempt to get the actual records and,
unfortunbately, it had limited success. LNer's champion the ARRB releases
because they don't prove a conspiracy, although the same evidence didn't
prove there wasn't either. CTer's see the failure of the ARRB to get the
releases that it wanted as evidence they are correct (The ARRB hinted they
were not able to release CT evidence).
But to your original question, the members of the Warren Commission were
honest men who were spoon fed their results and, by their own records,
eventually figured it out that Hoover was controlling their results.
Without their own investigators they could not challenge Hoover's reports,
of which they were suspicious, and left with no alternative but to issue a
whitewashed report.
>
> - I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
> thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
> reference to this?
LNer's will claim anything. This is just BS. The test you are referring to
was rigged for its outcome and had to be conducted twice, with info
withheld, and with a "doctored" rifle, in order to meet the claim. Once
the test alterations for the rigged outcome were uncovered, LNers were
back to base zero. No one has duplicated the shots under duplicate
circumstances.
>
>
> Additionally, I cannot understand while some conspiracy theorists
> still believe despite evidence to the contrary:
>
> - Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
> back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
> Zapruder film.
That's true. I would have to say that I agree with that conclusion.
However, there is clearly something wrong with the autopsy work. Where
this bullet hit from behind, and the damage it did, is in wild dispute.
John McAdam's site, which you place so much faith in, was recently ripped
to pieces for its placement of the head wound.
>
> - Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
No opinion.
>
> - Grassy knoll, to me the shot clearly HAD to come from behind given
> the wound we see in the Zapruder film....so how could a shot have come
> from the knoll?
It missed.
::Clark::
Terence Nesbit
Rich Fisher wrote:
> Like many people who frequent this newsgroup, I have been fascinated
> with the JFK assassination for several years. Regardless of which side
> of the issue you fall, the sheer amount of speculation and unknown if
> utterly mind boggling.
>
> When I first started doing my own research (about 8 years ago) I
> believed there was some level of coverup. Over the years I have tried
> to be balanced in my consumation of information and have read books
> from both Posner and Marrs, watched several documentaries, dozens of
> times and often hit the major internet sites, like John McAdams
> excellent JFK LN site.
>
> With all that said and given that there are several different
> conspiracy theories (many of which have been debunked). I am curious
> as to what the prevailing wisdom is among those that still believe
> that Oswald was not the only shooter. While such theories as the
> french connection, Garrison / Clay Shaw and the three tramps (charles
> harrison included) have been debunked for the most part, others seem
> to have some steam left. Which ones are these?
>
I do not know which theories are still out there. I do know that I do
not believe that Oswald was the only shooter. I also disagree with most
in saying that the Z-film is evidence, used by every investigation into
the shooting that has been done since too. I like looking at the
evidence, and it doesn't fit. There is a picture of a drawing of JFK's
wounds, which shows at least five holes, but that is ignored to only
discuss the three shots. Of course, five does not equal three, so would
have to have been more than one shooter.
> Even as I now consider myself someone who believes that Oswald was the
> only killer, some issues still give me pause, even in spite of what I
> have read to refute those questions, namely:
>
> - The single bullet theory, this still seems like a stretch to believe
> that one bullet did this much damage and had that trajectory.
>
It didn't happen.
> - What is the motivation for men like Cyril Wecht and Fletcher Prouty
> to say the things they have said.
>
Not sure what you mean here.
> - Why were there so many open windows that day in Dallas?
>
> - I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
> inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
>
Because they wanted three shots, and no conspiracy, otherwise they would
have investigated everything and made more sense.
> - I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
> thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
> reference to this?
>
I still do not see why this is important. To debunk Oswald shooting
three shots in 6-8 seconds at a moving target? Think about it.
>
> Additionally, I cannot understand while some conspiracy theorists
> still believe despite evidence to the contrary:
>
> - Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
> back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
> Zapruder film.
>
I do not understand why the back of the head has to be destroyed from a
shot. Enough of his head was destroyed. I don't believe a shotgun
blast is bigger in the opposite side either. Even if the tests of the
MC rifle that were performed show nothing more, they show that damage
would be extensive, and that more movement would have to have occurred
if the shot came from the rear.
> - Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
>
I think so too.
> - Grassy knoll, to me the shot clearly HAD to come from behind given
> the wound we see in the Zapruder film....so how could a shot have come
> from the knoll?
>
Why? What do you see that says the shot had to come from the rear. You
have little to no forward movement, you have extensive backward
movement. JBC's movement is forward when he falls out too.
Terence Nesbit
You give a lot of weight to statments that others made. Even after
Oswald denied them (automatically the dead man is the liar?). Wow,
Oswald was anti-America? Where did that come from? And he worked.
I do not believe that the presence of fragments behind the sinus cavity
proves that shot came from the rear. Why should this be the case?
Why should the curtain rod story be considered true?
Why was there a diagram showing at least five holes in the president's body?
Why was there extensive movement to the rear at the moment of the headshot?
Why did JBC fall forward when he fell out?
Why didn't JBC move if the SBT is real, especially not forward after
being hit?
Why did people run into the Knoll following the shot?
Why did the motorcycle cop look that way after he got off of his bike?
Why was the person caught in a picture look in back of the knoll area as
he seems to speak to someone?
Why does JFK move his right hand down from the neck injury?
If you are going to see everything, then see everything.
ve...@remov.ethis.yahoo.com
wrote:
See: http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet
Also: http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
-Venem
Ecagetx
1) I referred to Oswald as a "liar" on my #15 reference to
his statement to DPD that he "did not own a gun." It is
well documented that he *did*..(2 that I know of..)
2) I also made that "liar" reference in #30 re his claim when
asked about the BY photos that it was simply, "Somebody
else's body with my head pasted on it" (As it turned out
Marina acknowledged that *she* took the BY pics..) If that
wasn't enough, even more BY pics w Oswald's head on the
body, were found in the Oswald camera making a presumption
of a SERIES of "faked" and "pasted" photos preposterous.
Additionally extensive photographic analysis tests *proved*
that the BY photos were legit..
3) Oswald renounced his American citizenship and defected
to Russia in 1959 I believe.. (This is why he was perceived
to be "anti-America.")
4) The case for a shot from the rear is very persuasive..
The inward entry beveled skull, the fragments behind the
sinus cavity, lack of an entrance or exit wound for a
"frontal" shot, and no witnesses or photographic evidence
of a "frontal shot."
BTW Terry, I'd like to add a 32nd reason that Oswald did it.
As I said before, NONE of these 32 reasons would convict on
their own when *isolated* but nonetheless he did leave his
wedding ring on the dresser the morning of 11-22-63. This
unique act was best summed up by Chad who said, "He
probably wanted his ring cleaned." (He also did not take any
of the $170 he had stashed at the Paine home..)
Ed Cage MAR281035
Subject: Re: Lots of questions for both sides
From: Terence Nesbit Terr...@att.net
Date: 3/27/2004 10:27 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <40663F6A...@att.net>
Ecagetx
Date: 3/27/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <9bj9c.106098$1p.1524332@attbi_s54>
==================
Dear JB:
(A pretty powerful "rebuttal"..)
Did *YOU* write it?
I think you have just made my case for me that
I previously stated above:
**********************
"..there are at least 2 hard-core CTers (WO an
explanation of their *own* btw..) who really
freak-out over the list below. Their "rebuttals"
range from, "Ed this is getting old" to "I still
think there's something fishy.."<==Ed Cage quote
***********************
MR ;~D MAR281143
Ecagetx
May I suggest to you that the 55 ton Bismarck
was too large and heavy to fit in the bag?
As usual your presumption that it is necessary
to establish *how* the murder weapon got to the
scene of the crime is necessary to establish
guilt is just incorrect.. Anyway there is some
fairly compelling evidence as to *how* Oswald got
his rifle to the TSBD..
Clark, your argument that it was more likely that
"The Bismarck was in the bag than Oswald's rifle"
has done nothing to enhance your reasoning
power rating on investigating a crime..
(Funny how both you and JB suddenly surface on
the "THIRTY ONE REASONS WHY OSWALD DID IT" list..)
I'm on the unread NG right now so I really
don't know who will magically appear next but I do
have a pretty good idea.. BTW, they will have no
similar CT list.. That we can be sure of..
"It's getting old Ed" seems to be the *centerpiece*
of the "rebuttals" unless you consider the "5th
Floor Gang must have been lying" argument..
Ed Cage MAR281209
(Like I said, this much real *evidence* in a pattern
contained in one post tends to infuriate hard-core
CTers..)
Subject: Re: Lots of questions for both sides
From: "clark wilkins" clwi...@prodigy.net
Date: 3/27/2004 10:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <106c8gh...@corp.supernews.com>
Glenn Sarlitto
Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
You posted..."""where multiple medical professionals stood at the gurney
and worked on him fo over a half hour,..."""
HUH? They stood at the gurney how long? Methinks you are a tad
off there according to the record. I've seen various times where JFK
was officially admitted....anywhere from 12:38 to 12:43. He was
pronounced dead at 1PM. Once he was pronounced dead, Jenkins
placed a sheet over JFK's face.
You posted..."""They reported what they did see ...
independently of one another, for the medical-legal record ....
interesting isn't it how corrborative they are of one another ....
Interesting indeed...
Are you sure they didn't discuss with each other what they
saw before they reported what they saw?
Regards,
Glenn
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m2jb601496c7mvb2b...@4ax.com...
michaelandrewbull
> Admiral Wilkins,
> May I suggest to you that the 55 ton Bismarck
My! It really *was* a pocket battleship eh?<g>
Mike :-)
<snip>
clark wilkins
> Admiral Wilkins,
> May I suggest to you that the 55 ton Bismarck
> was too large and heavy to fit in the bag?
So?
You have the same problem.
The MC rifle won't fit either.
> As usual your presumption that it is necessary
> to establish *how* the murder weapon got to the
> scene of the crime is necessary to establish
> guilt is just incorrect.
Wrong again as usual. If one establishes that Lee didn't bring the rifle
into the TSBD, and you yourself listed a 31 point argument demonstrating
quite clearly that he did not, then LN theory does not work.
>Anyway there is some
> fairly compelling evidence as to *how* Oswald got
> his rifle to the TSBD..
You should post it sometime.
So far, you've posted 31 different ways that he didn't.
>
> Clark, your argument that it was more likely that
> "The Bismarck was in the bag than Oswald's rifle"
> has done nothing to enhance your reasoning
> power rating on investigating a crime.
It fits in the folded bag just as well as your rifle.
>
> (Funny how both you and JB suddenly surface on
> the "THIRTY ONE REASONS WHY OSWALD DID IT" list..)
If you continue to post false and misleading claims I will continue to
post that they are false and misleading claims.
> I'm on the unread NG right now so I really
> don't know who will magically appear next but I do
> have a pretty good idea.. BTW, they will have no
> similar CT list.. That we can be sure of..
We don't need one. You posted 31 different ways that JFK was killed by a
conspiracy for us.
How did the rifle get into the building again, Ed?
>
> "It's getting old Ed" seems to be the *centerpiece*
> of the "rebuttals" unless you consider the "5th
> Floor Gang must have been lying" argument..
Did the 5th floor gang tell the truth, Ed?
>
> Ed Cage MAR281209
> (Like I said, this much real *evidence* in a pattern
> contained in one post tends to infuriate hard-core
> CTers..)
>
If you posted "real" evidence, Ed, why did you get caught posting
"fantasy" evidence?
What you should try sometime, Ed, is actually posting REAL evidence. Oh!
That's right! You can't do that. You don't have any.
::Clark::
clark wilkins
"John Blubaugh" <j.blu...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:9bj9c.106098$1p.1524332@attbi_s54...
Evidently, he believes if he posts it enough it will magically come true
or some uninformed reader will actually believe it.
::Clark::
clark wilkins
> Subject: Re: Lots of questions for both sides
> From: "John Blubaugh" j.blu...@insightbb.com
> Date: 3/27/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
> Message-id: <9bj9c.106098$1p.1524332@attbi_s54>
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > Ed Cage MAR261713
>
> > Oh, please, not the dreaded 31 points yet again. How many times will > you
> > insist on posting this same drivel?
> > JB
>
> ==================
>
> Dear JB:
> (A pretty powerful "rebuttal"..)
> Did *YOU* write it?
It works for me. Short, brief and to the point.
> I think you have just made my case for me that
> I previously stated above:
> **********************
> "..there are at least 2 hard-core CTers (WO an
> explanation of their *own* btw..) who really
> freak-out over the list below. Their "rebuttals"
> range from, "Ed this is getting old" to "I still
> think there's something fishy.."<==Ed Cage quote
> ***********************
>
> MR ;~D MAR281143
And let us repeat the REST of your quote from your post. You ALSO said:
"Please consider the ENTIRE PICTURE."
And I did consider your ENTIRE PICTURE, Ed. That's your problem. Your
entire case, outside of proving a conspiracy, is worthless.
Maybe you need to "Please consider the ENTIRE PICTURE" yourself before
posting your imaginary case again.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Terry, thanks for your input..
>
> 1) I referred to Oswald as a "liar" on my #15 reference to
> his statement to DPD that he "did not own a gun." It is
> well documented that he *did*..(2 that I know of..)
>
How could Oswald deny that he owned a gun when he pulled it in the
theater and it was taken away from him? When the DPD asked him why he
was carrying it, he said well you know how us Texas boys are about our
guns. So, Oswald DID admit that he owned a gun.
> 2) I also made that "liar" reference in #30 re his claim when
> asked about the BY photos that it was simply, "Somebody
> else's body with my head pasted on it" (As it turned out
> Marina acknowledged that *she* took the BY pics..) If that
Which pics? How does she remember that she took THAT particular photo
which the DPD showed Oswald? She may have also take the missing photo,
the one with Oswald holding the rifle over his head. To Oswald the
blow-up looked suspicious.
> wasn't enough, even more BY pics w Oswald's head on the
> body, were found in the Oswald camera making a presumption
Exactly which photos were found "IN" Oswald's camera?
> of a SERIES of "faked" and "pasted" photos preposterous.
> Additionally extensive photographic analysis tests *proved*
> that the BY photos were legit..
>
> 3) Oswald renounced his American citizenship and defected
> to Russia in 1959 I believe.. (This is why he was perceived
> to be "anti-America.")
>
> 4) The case for a shot from the rear is very persuasive..
> The inward entry beveled skull, the fragments behind the
Show me the entry wound on the back of the skull.
> sinus cavity, lack of an entrance or exit wound for a
> "frontal" shot, and no witnesses or photographic evidence
> of a "frontal shot."
>
The semi-circular defect IS the frontal entrance wound. You need to
actually look at the autopsy photos.
> BTW Terry, I'd like to add a 32nd reason that Oswald did it.
> As I said before, NONE of these 32 reasons would convict on
> their own when *isolated* but nonetheless he did leave his
> wedding ring on the dresser the morning of 11-22-63. This
> unique act was best summed up by Chad who said, "He
> probably wanted his ring cleaned." (He also did not take any
> of the $170 he had stashed at the Paine home..)
>
He left $170 for his wife.
clark wilkins
> Barb,
>
>
>
> You posted..."""They reported what they did see ...
> independently of one another, for the medical-legal record ....
> interesting isn't it how corrborative they are of one another ....
>
>
> Interesting indeed...
> Are you sure they didn't discuss with each other what they
> saw before they reported what they saw?
Facinating!
An LN conspiracist!
::Clark::
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Anthony,
>
> """Look at his target which he shot at 85 yards. Notice how badly he
> > missed.""""
>
> He missed the BULLSEYE. Didn't miss the target. Not bad for the first
> time. I would say....not bad at all.
>
Fine. I didn't say he missed the target, because I am specifically
pointing out to the reader where he hit the target, but missed the
bullseye. Do I really have to spell it out exactly as if the readers are
morons?
> You missed the point about that exercise of his.
>
I am making my own points. Remember I prefaced my remarks by saying that
it shows that WC defenders accidentally confirm things that I have been
saying. Then I pointed out those specific things.
> On another note, Chad could confirm this and others who have shot a
> Carcano... QUITE the ADRENALIN FLOW. It was for me.
>
> That is the one item that can never be duplicated....the RUSH! The ZONED
> IN FEELING Oswald had.
>
That is a very old canard. A favorite of the WC defenders. It goes back
to 1964. The idea is supposed to be that Oswald was so pumped up that he
could do things which no one else could.
> Funny, last December some people spent millions to duplicate the WRIGHT
> Brother's first flight. They Failed. Does that mean it never happened?
>
The Wright Brothers failed many times themselves. The succeeded when
they had ideal conditions. It is hard to replicate ideal conditions. One
can not control the weather on such a small scale.
> Glenn
>
> PS.......What you have is DOUBT. What you don't have is REASONABLE DOUBT.
> BIG DIFFERENCE.
>
BS what I have is not doubt. What I have are facts.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Barb,
>
> Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
>
> You posted..."""where multiple medical professionals stood at the gurney
> and worked on him fo over a half hour,..."""
>
> HUH? They stood at the gurney how long? Methinks you are a tad
> off there according to the record. I've seen various times where JFK
> was officially admitted....anywhere from 12:38 to 12:43. He was
> pronounced dead at 1PM. Once he was pronounced dead, Jenkins
> placed a sheet over JFK's face.
>
True to a certain extent. It took only about 4 minutes to get to the
hospital and then a couple of minutes to put him on the gurney. That
makes it about 12:37. And officially the President died at 1:07. That's
about a half hour.
Glenn Sarlitto
> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> >
> > Barb,
> >
> > Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
> >
> > You posted..."""where multiple medical professionals stood at the gurney
> > and worked on him fo over a half hour,..."""
> >
> > HUH? They stood at the gurney how long? Methinks you are a tad
> > off there according to the record. I've seen various times where JFK
> > was officially admitted....anywhere from 12:38 to 12:43. He was
> > pronounced dead at 1PM. Once he was pronounced dead, Jenkins
> > placed a sheet over JFK's face.
> >
>
> True to a certain extent. It took only about 4 minutes to get to the
> hospital and then a couple of minutes to put him on the gurney. That
> makes it about 12:37. And officially the President died at 1:07. That's
> about a half hour.
>
Hmmmmmmm............4 MINUTES???!!!
The Underpass is 4 MILES away?
That's an average speed of 100 Miles Per Hour...That's as fast as Casy
Jones was driving that train in order to make it on time. Needless to say,
it was his last run also. Not bad for the SS-100X huh?
William Manchester states the "Lincoln reached Parkland at 12:36...
The Hospital wasn't ready...."
Anyone else here have a different time frame in the above regards?
Regards,
Glenn
Glenn Sarlitto
Unfortunately, Not when it comes to Oswald
NOT FIRING that weapon. All you have is DOUBT.
You have no physical evidence.
You have no circumstantial evidence.
You have no REASONABLE DOUBT showing that.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
One would think by now that he'd at least get #2 right .... geesh.
Wonder why in #19 he didn't include the FACT that BOTH Randle and
Frazier said the package they saw was too SHORT to hold the rifle? And
on and on it goes ....
Barb :-)
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Barb,
>
>Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
Dijon or screaming yellow?? <g>
>
>
>You posted..."""where multiple medical professionals stood at the gurney
>and worked on him fo over a half hour,..."""
>
>HUH? They stood at the gurney how long? Methinks you are a tad
>off there according to the record. I've seen various times where JFK
>was officially admitted....anywhere from 12:38 to 12:43. He was
>pronounced dead at 1PM. Once he was pronounced dead, Jenkins
>placed a sheet over JFK's face.
THey ultimately placed it as 1pm .... but looks like you need to read
up on the actual times and comments made to the ARRB.
>
>
>
>You posted..."""They reported what they did see ...
>independently of one another, for the medical-legal record ....
>interesting isn't it how corrborative they are of one another ....
>
>
>Interesting indeed...
>Are you sure they didn't discuss with each other what they
>saw before they reported what they saw?
Can you cite me something from one/some that said they did? And IF
they did ... are you saying they would put into their own
medical-legal notes a decription of a wound they did not see?
Do you subscribe to the mass Parkland hallucination .... or now
propose some sort of mass collusion .....???
You do know, of course, that the autopsy coorborates Parkland as
regards real estate in the right rear of the skull behind the ear,
right?
Appraise that. :-)
Barb :-)
Ecagetx
I offer 32 points of *evidence* and predict that:
1) This much *evidence* in one pattern will
infuriate CTers who will offer no such list of
their own conspiracy theory.. (Primarily bc
they have no such list.)
2) I also predicted that the primary "rebuttal"
to the 32 point list will be variations of "Ed,
this is getting old"
(Pretty potent stuff huh?)
3) I must give credit however for the "rebuttal"
that the Fifth Floor Gang was lying or mistaken..
(I suppose the conclusion here is that the
shots must have come from elsewhere -
Perhaps the Dal-Tex bldg?)
BTW Tony, Oswald *did* tell the DPD that he
"did not own a gun".. I say he lied..
You can't present a CT list of *evidence*
that comes close to the 32 points.. (None of
the CTers can.) If I'm wrong here I promise
not to say, "This is getting old."
Ed Cage MAR290809
Subject: Re: Lots of questions for both sides
From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
Date: 3/28/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <406773F8...@quik.com>
Ecagetx
Conspiracy Theory" faction is using to
deal w a *pattern of 32 points of evidence*
It is simply to <snip> it...
Something I never do btw, even if the
rebuttal *questions* are of the comical
Admiral Wilkins variety.. I shall call this
faction the NOCT gang..
Dear NOCT gang:
If you don't have a conflicting similar *pattern
of evidence* at least be kind enough not to
<snip>
those of us who do present a *pattern of
evidence*
Ed Cage MAR290829
Subject: Re: Lots of questions for both sides
From: eca...@aol.com (Ecagetx)
Date: 3/26/2004 10:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <20040326202533...@mb-m24.aol.com>
Ed Cage MAR261713
> Subject: Lots of questions for both sides
> From: chargerr...@yahoo.com (Rich Fisher)
> Date: 3/26/2004 5:16 PM Central Standard Time
> Message-id: <c6e8c0b7.04032...@posting.google.com>
Like many people who frequent this newsgroup, I have been fascinated
with the JFK assassination for several years. Regardless of which side
of the issue you fall, the sheer amount of speculation and unknown if
utterly mind boggling.
When I first started doing my own research (about 8 years ago) I
believed there was some level of coverup. Over the years I have tried
to be balanced in my consumation of information and have read books
from both Posner and Marrs, watched several documentaries, dozens of
times and often hit the major internet sites, like John McAdams
excellent JFK LN site.
With all that said and given that there are several different
conspiracy theories (many of which have been debunked). I am curious
as to what the prevailing wisdom is among those that still believe
that Oswald was not the only shooter. While such theories as the
french connection, Garrison / Clay Shaw and the three tramps (charles
harrison included) have been debunked for the most part, others seem
to have some steam left. Which ones are these?
Even as I now consider myself someone who believes that Oswald was the
only killer, some issues still give me pause, even in spite of what I
have read to refute those questions, namely:
- The single bullet theory, this still seems like a stretch to believe
that one bullet did this much damage and had that trajectory.
- What is the motivation for men like Cyril Wecht and Fletcher Prouty
to say the things they have said.
- Why were there so many open windows that day in Dallas?
- I have read the Warren Commission and it is at best woefully
inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
- I have read that the "3 shots in 6-8 seconds" that was at one time
thought impossible has since been done. Can someone point me to a
reference to this?
Additionally, I cannot understand while some conspiracy theorists
still believe despite evidence to the contrary:
- Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
Zapruder film.
- Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
- Grassy knoll, to me the shot clearly HAD to come from behind given
the wound we see in the Zapruder film....so how could a shot have come
from the knoll?
Would love to see some feedback.
Thank you,
Rich
John Blubaugh
Don't try to confuse Ed with facts, Barb. It gets in the way of his beloved
31 points.
JB
> >
> >
>
GMcNally
The docs didn't have a stop watch on them and can only estimate how
long they spent w/JFK after he was brought into Parkland. The
estimates vary, but, 20 mins is about average.
First they assessed his condition - he was not breathing. They did a
trach and inserted a tube. They began preparing his chest. They did
cardiac massage.
Their focus was on resuscitating him.
The efforts were unsuccessful. They observed the large avulsed wound
to his head - such as we see in the Z-film - and the great amounts of
blood and gore
flowing out of his head.
And it was obvious that they had failed and they couldn't save him.
They left at this point; ER docs don't hang around when a patient
dies.
There was a short delay in pronouncing JFK dead. Then they agreed on a
time.
It was one burst of concentrated effort to save a man who couldn't be
saved. The letdown was tremendous.
Jerry
> Regards,
>
> Glenn
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:40677AF9...@quik.com...
> > Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> > >
> > > Barb,
> > >
> > > Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
> > >
> > > You posted..."""where multiple medical professionals stood at the gurney
> > > and worked on him fo over a half hour,..."""
> > >
> > > HUH? They stood at the gurney how long? Methinks you are a tad
> > > off there according to the record. I've seen various times where JFK
> > > was officially admitted....anywhere from 12:38 to 12:43. He was
> > > pronounced dead at 1PM. Once he was pronounced dead, Jenkins
> > > placed a sheet over JFK's face.
> > >
> >
> > True to a certain extent. It took only about 4 minutes to get to the
> > hospital and then a couple of minutes to put him on the gurney. That
> > makes it about 12:37. And officially the President died at 1:07. That's
> > about a half hour.
> >
>
> Hmmmmmmm............4 MINUTES???!!!
I did not say exactly minutes. I said ABOUT minutes. Why do you ignore
my qualifiers?
About 4 minutes is one estimate.
> The Underpass is 4 MILES away?
I never said that.
>
> That's an average speed of 100 Miles Per Hour...That's as fast as Casy
Your math is wrong to start. If you incorrectly use those figures as
absolutes, you have in your mind the limousine traveling 4 miles in 4
minutes. Then you claim that is an average speed of 100 miles per hour.
You need to go back to school. Divide the miles by the minutes. 4/4 = 1.
So the limousine would be going 1 mile per minute. Thus it would be
going 60 miles in one hour. Your mistake was in thinking that there are
100 minutes in one hour. You are thinking too metric. There are only 60
minutes in one hour. So, yes the limousine reached speeds of 60-70 MPH
on the way to the hospital.
> Jones was driving that train in order to make it on time. Needless to say,
I resent very much your bringing Casey Jones into this discussion. He
did not have an average speed of 100 MPH. I doubt very much that any
locomotive could have reached 100 MPH back then. He had an average speed
of 60 MPH.
> it was his last run also. Not bad for the SS-100X huh?
And the wreck was not his fault. It was the fault of the idiot who
parked his train on a siding with his ass sticking out.
>
> William Manchester states the "Lincoln reached Parkland at 12:36...
Manchester got many details wrong, but there is nothing wrong with the
estimate of 12:36. That is about 4 minutes after the limousine left
Dealey Plaza.
>
> The Hospital wasn't ready...."
>
And that's why it took them a couple of minutes to get the President
out. (and some additional factors)
> Anyone else here have a different time frame in the above regards?
>
There is nothing wrong with that time frame.
> Regards,
>
> Glenn
Glenn Sarlitto
> On 28 Mar 2004 18:39:23 -0500, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Barb,
> >
> >Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
>
> Dijon or screaming yellow?? <g>
Dijon, my dear, always Dijon. :-)
> THey ultimately placed it as 1pm .... but looks like you need to read
> up on the actual times and comments made to the ARRB.
> >
That I will do.
> Can you cite me something from one/some that said they did?
Read McLelland's testimony. A precedent in thinking in that regards,
for starters.
And IF
> they did ... are you saying they would put into their own
> medical-legal notes a decription of a wound they did not see?
Not in a million years. In my book those young doctors even the resident
Crenshaw performed to the best of their ability and in an honorable
and honest way.
>
> Do you subscribe to the mass Parkland hallucination .... or now
> propose some sort of mass collusion .....???
>
Nope.
> You do know, of course, that the autopsy coorborates Parkland as
> regards real estate in the right rear of the skull behind the ear,
> right?
>
> Appraise that. :-)
Correct me if I am wrong.....
The assignment above is to VALUE a piece of real estate in the right
rear of the skull behind the ear?
What I need from you first is either an address with zip code of that
specific area,
a Taxkey Number or Parcel Number will do fine.
I will also need a full LEGAL DESCRIPTION. You will find that in the TITLE
which you will need to order in case you don't have a copy,
before I can complete the assignment.
Will a MARKET approach suffice? Or do I need to include a Cost Approach
and INCOME Approach. Come to think about it, there does seem to be
forms of income that have been generated and stemming on writings concerning
that piece of real estate.
Finally, shall I do an interior inspection or will a "DRIVE BY"
exterior only inspection suffice? :-)
BTW.....Guido Medici's book is due out soon and should be discussing that
very issue in regards
to the Parkalnd Doctors and his BB BOUNCE THEORY.
Glenn :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<j.blu...@insightbb.com> wrote:
Oh so true, one would think I would have learned by now .... sigh ....
Barb :-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
>I have noticed a new "response" the "No
>Conspiracy Theory" faction is using to
>deal w a *pattern of 32 points of evidence*
>It is simply to <snip> it...
If one does not see the need to respond to your thousand points of
lights lists in full, Ed, then snipping is an appropriate way to
handle it if the poster chooses.
> Something I never do btw, even if the
>rebuttal *questions* are of the comical
>Admiral Wilkins variety.. I shall call this
>faction the NOCT gang..
I'll call this BS. You've been known ... often ... to snip out an
entire post and leave just a commnet ... generally avoiding what the
person had to say or asked you about all together.
>
>Dear NOCT gang:
>If you don't have a conflicting similar *pattern
>of evidence* at least be kind enough not to
><snip>
>those of us who do present a *pattern of
>evidence*
You "pattern" has been dealt with long ago, Ed.And despite corrections
to some quite inaccurate and/or misleading facts in your lists, you
ignore them and repost the same pap.
Snip happens. Deal with it.
>
>Ed Cage MAR290829
[Sa-NIP]
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>news:40677AF9...@quik.com...
>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>> >
>> > Barb,
>> >
>> > Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
>> >
>> > You posted..."""where multiple medical professionals stood at the gurney
>> > and worked on him fo over a half hour,..."""
>> >
>> > HUH? They stood at the gurney how long? Methinks you are a tad
>> > off there according to the record. I've seen various times where JFK
>> > was officially admitted....anywhere from 12:38 to 12:43. He was
>> > pronounced dead at 1PM. Once he was pronounced dead, Jenkins
>> > placed a sheet over JFK's face.
>> >
>>
>> True to a certain extent. It took only about 4 minutes to get to the
>> hospital and then a couple of minutes to put him on the gurney. That
>> makes it about 12:37. And officially the President died at 1:07. That's
>> about a half hour.
>>
>
>Hmmmmmmm............4 MINUTES???!!!
>The Underpass is 4 MILES away?
>
>That's an average speed of 100 Miles Per Hour..
By what math? 4 miles in 4 minutes is a mile a minute. How many
minutes are in an hour???? :-)
Barb :-)
[....]
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ulhg60li1oj2icg6s...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Mar 2004 18:39:23 -0500, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Barb,
>> >
>> >Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
>>
>> Dijon or screaming yellow?? <g>
>
>
>
>Dijon, my dear, always Dijon. :-)
Ahhh, but good old screaming yellow has its moments, my dear. ;-)
>
>
>
>> THey ultimately placed it as 1pm .... but looks like you need to read
>> up on the actual times and comments made to the ARRB.
>> >
>
>
>That I will do.
>
>
>> Can you cite me something from one/some that said they did?
>
>
>Read McLelland's testimony. A precedent in thinking in that regards,
>for starters.
If I recall correctly, he relates some discussions about how it may
have come about, what went in and out where, etc ... not where the
nasty wound was locatated.
>
>And IF
>> they did ... are you saying they would put into their own
>> medical-legal notes a decription of a wound they did not see?
>
>Not in a million years. In my book those young doctors even the resident
>Crenshaw performed to the best of their ability and in an honorable
>and honest way.
On this, we agree. So any discussions (which would have been natural
between the more talkatives types either with others present or not
present) really is not relevant. Si si?
>
>>
>> Do you subscribe to the mass Parkland hallucination .... or now
>> propose some sort of mass collusion .....???
>>
>
>Nope.
Good. Yet you don't seem to think they were acccurate in their
generally corroborative placemnt of the general location of the gaping
wound .... right rear behind the ear, essentially where the parietal,
temporal and occipital bones meet.
>
>
>> You do know, of course, that the autopsy coorborates Parkland as
>> regards real estate in the right rear of the skull behind the ear,
>> right?
>>
>> Appraise that. :-)
>
>Correct me if I am wrong.....
>
>The assignment above is to VALUE a piece of real estate in the right
>rear of the skull behind the ear?
Value is obvious ... just tell me based pn Parkland physicians, Clint
Hill and the autopsists at Bethesada if you think that chunk of real
estate was present or not. ;-)
>
>What I need from you first is either an address with zip code of that
>specific area,
>a Taxkey Number or Parcel Number will do fine.
I asked for this ....
>
>I will also need a full LEGAL DESCRIPTION. You will find that in the TITLE
>which you will need to order in case you don't have a copy,
>before I can complete the assignment.
..and should have known....
>
>Will a MARKET approach suffice? Or do I need to include a Cost Approach
>and INCOME Approach. Come to think about it, there does seem to be
>forms of income that have been generated and stemming on writings concerning
>that piece of real estate.
see Glenn take the soft ball I lobbed and run with it.... touche'.
>
>Finally, shall I do an interior inspection or will a "DRIVE BY"
>exterior only inspection suffice? :-)
Have never been impressed by drive bys myself.<g>
>
>BTW.....Guido Medici's book is due out soon and should be discussing that
>very issue in regards
>to the Parkalnd Doctors and his BB BOUNCE THEORY.
I live in anticipation......
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>Well there you have it folks..
>I offer 32 points of *evidence* and predict that:
>
>1) This much *evidence* in one pattern will
>infuriate CTers
Oh horibly ... why, Ed, I think you are probably the very firt person
to ever generate so much damning information in one place for CT-ers!
>who will offer no such list of
>their own conspiracy theory..
Personally, I've developed an aversion to lists thanks to you and
another .... why, I can't even come to make a grocery list anymore,
just run willy-nilly around the grocery store...
> (Primarily bc
>they have no such list.)
PRAISE GOD! (not that one could not be made, of course, but because we
are all in aversion therapy thatnks to yours).
>2) I also predicted that the primary "rebuttal"
>to the 32 point list will be variations of "Ed,
>this is getting old"
>(Pretty potent stuff huh?)
Actually, just ignoring it was long ago agreed to be the best response
... but, you know how we are ... a chatty bunch ... and some have a
prob ignoring repeated postings of facts that have been corrected
before.
>3) I must give credit however for the "rebuttal"
>that the Fifth Floor Gang was lying or mistaken..
I missed that one.
>(I suppose the conclusion here is that the
>shots must have come from elsewhere -
>Perhaps the Dal-Tex bldg?)
A possibility, I suppose. Mostly, any "rebutta;" to what you continue
to post about the fifth floor gang merely needs to point out that you
are still posting it in your list in an inaccurate, misstated,
misinformation manner.
>
>BTW Tony, Oswald *did* tell the DPD that he
>"did not own a gun".. I say he lied..
Got a quote on Oswald saying that ..... other than from latter day
notes written from memory by one official or another whose notes match
in some areas and disagree in others?
> You can't present a CT list of *evidence*
>that comes close to the 32 points.. (None of
>the CTers can.) If I'm wrong here I promise
>not to say, "This is getting old."
Nope, Ed...you are right on. NO CT-er exists who could put displays
such as yours! Well, I take that back .... I can think of a
couple.....sigh.
>
>Ed Cage MAR290809
Barb :-)
[snip happens ... again]
Glenn Sarlitto
Anthony,
Yep...DUH.....you are correct, sir.....60 mph average... that HIGH SPEED
must have effected me last night...:-)
I read that the overpass was 4 miles away somewhere. I know u didn't claim
that one. How about close to 100 at least...keep the connection going to
Casey and the RR...;-)
In regards to Casey?..why the resentment.....although a hero of mine... it
was his fault...too fast for conditions and most likely fatigue after a
"double run" out of Memphis.
http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/casey.htm
""""""I doubt very much that any locomotive could have reached
100 MPH back then. He had an average speed of 60 MPH. """"""
A record run of 107 MPH was set in 1893. Casey very much so was travelling
100 MPH at times that night. He had to in order to have had the train in
on time once he got to Duran. He was about 1 minute off when he rammed
into that train. He made up 90 minutes in about four hours. He was
TRAVELLIN' that night.
There were actually two trains on that siding at Vaughan. They were
attempting a SAW-BY when one of the cars breaklines burst.... alot of
congestion that night due to recent floods.
Some say a Flagman was to blame...but Casey missed the signal... heard the
TORPEDO though...put the breaks on, driver's in reverse, let the sand fly
and started to blow that whistle.... his fireman jumped and survived.
If the song Casey Jones wasn't written and placed on sheetmusic in 1909 we
would never have really given Casey a second look. It happened alot
around 1900.
Glenn
PS Chill Out Tony. This thing happened a long time ago. RESENTMENT?
because I mentioned Casey? Sad....Very Sad.
Glenn Sarlitto
"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.04032...@posting.google.com...
I can only imagime the LETDOWN. The MOMENT.
I once heard/read Crenshaw puked his brains out after that. :-)
Doug Gosha
>On 29 Mar 2004 16:55:26 -0500, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:ulhg60li1oj2icg6s...@4ax.com...
>>> On 28 Mar 2004 18:39:23 -0500, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Barb,
>>> >
>>> >Baloney? Pass the Mustard! :-)
>>>
>>> Dijon or screaming yellow?? <g>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dijon, my dear, always Dijon. :-)
>
>
>Ahhh, but good old screaming yellow has its moments, my dear. ;-)
This is a truism. Hot dogs and hamburgers just wouldn't be "kosher" with
Dijon :")
There is no way I am going to get involved in the reat of this discussion.
Doug
Doug Gosha
>On 29 Mar 2004 14:18:32 -0500, eca...@aol.com (Ecagetx) wrote:
>
>>Well there you have it folks..
>>I offer 32 points of *evidence* and predict that:
>>
>>1) This much *evidence* in one pattern will
>>infuriate CTers
>
>Oh horibly ... why, Ed, I think you are probably the very firt person
>to ever generate so much damning information in one place for CT-ers!
>
>>who will offer no such list of
>>their own conspiracy theory..
>
>Personally, I've developed an aversion to lists thanks to you and
>another .... why, I can't even come to make a grocery list anymore,
>just run willy-nilly around the grocery store...
How terrible for you, Dear. How about hardware stores? "Let's see now,
dang it. I can't remember if that was a rifle I wanted to buy or curtain
rods. Guess I'll get one of each. And cashier, could you put those in a
plain brown paper bag for me? Not too big though. Thanks !"
;")
Doug
clark wilkins
> Well there you have it folks..
> I offer 32 points of *evidence* and predict that:
>
> 1) This much *evidence* in one pattern
Here's the pattern of your evidence:
1) Oswald lied and 2) there were pictures of Oswald therefore 3) no
conspiracy.
>will
> infuriate CTers who will offer no such list of
> their own conspiracy theory.. (Primarily bc
> they have no such list.)
You don't have a list either, Ed. You posted a list demonstrating Lee
didn't bring the rifle into the building and even cited witnesses to that
effect. That's a CT list, Ed. Why don't you try posting an LN list? Or
can't THAT be done?
> 2) I also predicted that the primary "rebuttal"
> to the 32 point list will be variations of "Ed,
> this is getting old"
> (Pretty potent stuff huh?)
Your 32 points were blown out of the water - just like the Bismark -
compliments of Admiral Clark.
> 3) I must give credit however for the "rebuttal"
> that the Fifth Floor Gang was lying or mistaken..
> (I suppose the conclusion here is that the
> shots must have come from elsewhere -
> Perhaps the Dal-Tex bldg?)
Which way did the fifth floor gang run?
>
> BTW Tony, Oswald *did* tell the DPD that he
> "did not own a gun".. I say he lied..
> You can't present a CT list of *evidence*
> that comes close to the 32 points.. (None of
> the CTers can.) If I'm wrong here I promise
> not to say, "This is getting old."
We're still waiting for you to post 32 points of evidence that actually
support your conclusion and which do not include the errors you know it to
be full of.
But I'm sure we'll be seeing Ed's "32 Imaginary Evidence" list again soon
- probably too soon. In the meantime we can only hope some LNer will take
pity on him and help him out. (Hint! Hint!) PLEASE?
::Admiral Clark::
Barb Junkkarinen
Smart man. The mustard may be the best part anyway. ;-)
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
quid
> inaccurate. Why were there so many inaccuracies and oversights?
*I agree, it is not the most impressive investigation - I would have liked
to have seen some testimony from certain witnesses that weren't called.
> - Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
> back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
> Zapruder film.
**This is too general as some of us believe that he was struck from the
rear, but don't believe that Oswald acted alone.
> - Badge man, this seems like such a stretch
*I honestly can't see what others see.
quid
Barb Junkkarinen
ROTFL!!!
Barb :-^)
Doug Gosha
Tony, I think this is one case where I wouldn't argue if I were you. You
should just bow out of the Casey Jones thing gracefully.
Doug
Doug Gosha
I always get curious as to why somebody, sometime, decided to try to make
something to eat out of something.
I mean, who said "Hey, let's take these whatchamacallit seeds, grind 'em up,
mix 'em with other stuff, and see what they taste like?"
And then, "Hmmm....tastes OK but I don't like the brown color. Let's add some
turmeric to make it yellow. Ya! That's a good idea boss!. I bet it'll be good
on those long, round things they invent in the future along with that red stuff
they'll put on them! Catsup?....No, Ketchup! What are they? Hot
Cats?.......No! Hot Dogs. Hot Cats play jazz....Oh yeah."
Doug
>Barb :-)
>>
>>Doug
AnthonyMarsh
Bow out? You can't see that I was just teasing him? I am only making fun
of his getting the details wrong.
Glenn Sarlitto
> > >PS Chill Out Tony. This thing happened a long time ago. RESENTMENT?
> >
> > Tony, I think this is one case where I wouldn't argue if I were you. You
> > should just bow out of the Casey Jones thing gracefully.> > Doug
>
> Bow out? You can't see that I was just teasing him? I am only making fun
Yeah, Right Anthony.....Still SAD..Vary Sad.
Guess I missed the tease also. I took the "I RESENT VERY MUCH"
to mean just that.
"""""I resent very much your bringing Casey Jones into this discussion. He
did not have an average speed of 100 MPH. I doubt very much that any
locomotive could have reached 100 MPH back then. He had an average speed
of 60 MPH. """""
I'll be the first to admit that obviously my math skills in regards to Land
Speed
are not up to par at times. Very minor detail in the JFK issue. But go ahead
and SHOOT ME for it anyway. :-)
The important thing is that I've got the Major DETAIL correct.
The IMPORTANT DETAIL
.
The one and only LOGICAL CONCLUSION using
plain and simple COMMON SENSE.
Bottomline...EYE/EARWITNESS Testimony alone is not enough
to conclude otherwise. Not with the abundance of PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE...The CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE...All pointing
in one direction with nothing pointing away from LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
Anthony, What you have is DOUBT. And a very serious and well
documented DOUBT. What you don't have is what you need. And that
is REASONABLE DOUBT that concludes the innocence of the
above named assassin. Big and Essential Difference in this very
serious matter.
Glenn
PS....(Doug has also got it right as many here.....
not the Doug of Doug's Thugs Theories.
Not that One.
The one who thinks a frickin' man in his midlife
years can work with N Gauge. That one...:-)
Glenn Sarlitto
I was BRAINDEAD during that part of the 4 minutes
it took me to post that message. Thanks for the
resuscitation. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Glad it worked .... my CPR card is expired.<g>
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
I hear ya, Doug. Like rubber, I expect many things were invented by
accident ... and a good many others by desperation for something
palatable. Who figured out bread and leavening, and making cakes, etc.
Who would ever look at an artichoke and figure it would be edible ....
or celery root ... now there's an ugly one, but it tastes good.
Desperation/hunger must have come into play on that one. And go figure
snails....
When it comes to things like hot dogs and sausage .... my theory is
ignorance is bliss unless you're in to knowing you are eating hips,
lips and mechanically separated chicken. That's a preocess that
conjures up a pretty bad visual.....
BWAK!
Barb :-)
>
>>Barb :-)
>>>
>>>Doug
>
>
>
Drumrolls3
>Date: 3/31/04 12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <jn0m601i62e3fpj63...@4ax.com>
LOL!!!!! this is really funny, Barb and Doug!
I was getting hungry with the discussion about mustard and hot dogs, but
now Im not so sure... Eating hips, lips and mechanically separated
chicken. ROFLMBO!!
What's artichoke taste like? Is it good with mustard? Pepper?
Steve
Doug Gosha
Which details did he get wrong, Tony? Your doubt that any locomotive could
reach 100 mph back then is wrong.
Doug
Doug Gosha
I don't work with N Gauge, it works with me...or on me....:")
Doug
AnthonyMarsh
So basically you are saying that it doesn't matter if the WC defenders
get every fact wrong and provide false information to back up their
wacky theories, because the only thing that matters is that Oswald did
it?
> Anthony, What you have is DOUBT. And a very serious and well
> documented DOUBT. What you don't have is what you need. And that
> is REASONABLE DOUBT that concludes the innocence of the
> above named assassin. Big and Essential Difference in this very
> serious matter.
>
> Glenn
>
> PS....(Doug has also got it right as many here.....
> not the Doug of Doug's Thugs Theories.
> Not that One.
> The one who thinks a frickin' man in his midlife
> years can work with N Gauge. That one...:-)
Michael O'Dell
"Drumrolls3" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20040331125018...@mb-m18.wmconnect.com...
Everything is good with mustard.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
It is funny, Steve, but true! Mechanically separated chicken shows up
in all sorts of things ... has become a joke around our house because
we don't eat many "prepared" type foods, but still find it listed on
labels of things I do buy occasionally... even the peperoni & teriyaki
sticks I bought for my son to carry now that tennis season is underway
(because they don't need refrigeration ... don't want to ponder why
not) turned out to contain "mechanically separated chicken."
Think about the mustard and dogs .... all beef dogs .... instead, but
do a google for "mechanically separated chicken" for giggles ... if
you dare.<g> I just tried it and pages and pages came up. Kinda scary.
Hope they take the feathers off first. ;-(
Here's one explanation:
QUOTE
Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP) Mechanically Separated Poultry
(MSP) is a paste-like and batter-like poultry product produced by
forcing bones, with attached edible tissue, through a sieve or similar
device under high pressure to separate bone from the edible tissue.
Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since
the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated
poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions.
However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or
turkey" in the product's ingredients statement. The final rule became
effective November 4, 1996. Hot dogs can contain any amount of
mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
END QUOTE
It's from a usda site at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/focushotdog.htm
Yikes. Pass the artichokes!
>
> What's artichoke taste like? Is it good with mustard? Pepper?
Yum ... artichokes. Dip in butter, add a squeeze of lemon and a bit of
S&P if you like ..... I'd bag the mustard idea but do have a friend
that likes to dip the leaves in mayo....sounds glucky to me. Or stuff
them with seasoned bread crumbs, a little olive oil and parmesan
cheese.... and remember to snip off the thorns before cooking. ;-)
Now I am getting hungry....
Barb :-)
>
>
>Steve
Glenn Sarlitto
NOPE.
Next question........
Doug Gosha
They prolly have to use mechanical separation. Prolly can't find anybody who
wants to touch some of those parts. :")
Doug
Barb Junkkarinen
Good point.<g>
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
Sure seems that way a lot of the time!
Barb :-)
Drumrolls3
>Message-id: <hdln6054g0l2tor5j...@4ax.com>
getting now here : (
Teryaki sticks? (EWWWwww) ;-)
>Think about the mustard and dogs .... all beef dogs .... instead,
MMMmmmmmmm!!
but
>do a google for "mechanically separated chicken" for giggles ... if
>you dare.<g>
I better not. I might erp all over my pc keyboard (he he)
I just tried it and pages and pages came up. Kinda scary.
>Hope they take the feathers off first. ;-(
>
Glaaaaah!!!!
>Here's one explanation:
>
>QUOTE
>Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP) Mechanically Separated Poultry
>(MSP) is a paste-like and batter-like poultry product produced by
>forcing bones, with attached edible tissue, through a sieve or similar
>device under high pressure to separate bone from the edible tissue.
>Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since
>the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated
>poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions.
>However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or
>turkey" in the product's ingredients statement. The final rule became
>effective November 4, 1996. Hot dogs can contain any amount of
>mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
>END QUOTE
>
>It's from a usda site at:
>
>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/focushotdog.htm
>
>Yikes. Pass the artichokes!
LOL!! That what I say. That settles it. I'm going vegetarian!!! Pass
the veggie burgers, please ;- )
>> What's artichoke taste like? Is it good with mustard? Pepper?
>
>Yum ... artichokes. Dip in butter, add a squeeze of lemon and a bit of
>S&P if you like ..... I'd bag the mustard idea but do have a friend
>that likes to dip the leaves in mayo....sounds glucky to me.
Mmmmmm Butter!! Here goes my diet! ; )
Or stuff
>them with seasoned bread crumbs, a little olive oil and parmesan
>cheese.... and remember to snip off the thorns before cooking. ;-)
NOW **THIS **sounds great!!!!!
Do you cook artichokes?
>Now I am getting hungry....
Me too!!
Thanks for the recipes!
Steve
David Wimp
>(*Say, what ever happened to Vince Bugliosi's long-promised anti-Posner,
>pro-LN book?)
>
>
What made you think he was writting and anti-Posner book?
>
>
>
>
>>- Kennedy's head wound was from the rear, there is no way that the
>>back of the head was destroyed by the shot. It is clear even in the
>>Zapruder film.
>>
>>
>
>Careful, here come the Z-film alterationists. CTs have relied on
>testimony from emergency-room doctors who were in no position to make a
>clear diagnosis.
>
They were in a lot better position to determine the condition of JFK's
head than anybody can from the Zapruder film. The back of JFK's head is
in shadow, part of the scene are very bright, the aperture was set
automatically, and the film does not have a lot of dynamic range. Not
much of anything is visible in the shadows. The film is not really all
that clear in general. For example, can you tell that the back seat is
not smooth but has a large quilted pattern with fairly deep pleats? You
can to some extent, but only by inference. The "film shows the head
intact" argument is based on expectation of what the film should show and,
as the alterationists so amply demonstrate, those expectations are often
wrong.
Doug Gosha
Yes, dang it! It is so unclear in the Z film that the damage was to the right
front and that the vast majority of the matter flew to the front. Darn it
anyway!
Didn't that cotton-pickin' Zapruder guy know how to capture an assassination?
Doug
Doug Gosha
In the words of a Valley girl, "Eeeewwwww, I'm not touching THAT! Gag me with a
Chickem bone (spoon)!" Un-knarly!
Doug
>Barb :-)
>>
>>Doug
Doug Gosha
Two tofus to go please1 Make 'em rare! Oops, don't want no e-colli, better make
that medium well.......
Doug
Barb Junkkarinen
"Chickem" noted .... I'll never live it down.<g>
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
>
>>Barb :-)
>>>
>>>Doug
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
I feel like we got cheated with only one good snow .... but it was a
doozy, so I guess I shouldn't feel let down. Besides, now everything
is in bloom ... it's gorgeous. And though it rained the last couple of
days, last week we had a few days in the 70s and it'll be at least
that today.
>
>Teryaki sticks? (EWWWwww) ;-)
You don't like teriyaki?? You're missing out....
>
>>Think about the mustard and dogs .... all beef dogs .... instead,
>
>MMMmmmmmmm!!
>
>
> but
>>do a google for "mechanically separated chicken" for giggles ... if
>>you dare.<g>
>
> I better not. I might erp all over my pc keyboard (he he)
A distinct possibility. <g>
>
> I just tried it and pages and pages came up. Kinda scary.
>>Hope they take the feathers off first. ;-(
>>
> Glaaaaah!!!!
>>Here's one explanation:
>>
>>QUOTE
>>Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP) Mechanically Separated Poultry
>>(MSP) is a paste-like and batter-like poultry product produced by
>>forcing bones, with attached edible tissue, through a sieve or similar
>>device under high pressure to separate bone from the edible tissue.
>>Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since
>>the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated
>>poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions.
>>However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or
>>turkey" in the product's ingredients statement. The final rule became
>>effective November 4, 1996. Hot dogs can contain any amount of
>>mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
>>END QUOTE
>>
>>It's from a usda site at:
>>
>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/focushotdog.htm
>>
>>Yikes. Pass the artichokes!
>
>
> LOL!! That what I say. That settles it. I'm going vegetarian!!! Pass
>the veggie burgers, please ;- )
Those are good .... but real meat can't be beat!
>
>>> What's artichoke taste like? Is it good with mustard? Pepper?
>>
>>Yum ... artichokes. Dip in butter, add a squeeze of lemon and a bit of
>>S&P if you like ..... I'd bag the mustard idea but do have a friend
>>that likes to dip the leaves in mayo....sounds glucky to me.
>
> Mmmmmm Butter!! Here goes my diet! ; )
>
> Or stuff
>>them with seasoned bread crumbs, a little olive oil and parmesan
>>cheese.... and remember to snip off the thorns before cooking. ;-)
> NOW **THIS **sounds great!!!!!
>
>Do you cook artichokes?
Yup ... once in awhile. I don't think of them all that often, but this
time of year the stores have lots .... even the baby ones which are
GREAT! Take off all the leaves, pare down the stem, get rid of the
choke, and you've got a great little thingie to toss in a bit of olive
oil and whatever herbs/spices you want ... then grill them.
Okay, that does it ... I'm gonna have to buy some baby artichokes for
the weekend....
>
>
>>Now I am getting hungry....
>
> Me too!!
> Thanks for the recipes!
No prob ... they're easy. Steaming the big ones whole takes awhile,
about 50 minutes ... so it's not a "quick I want to raid the
refrigerator" thing ....
Enjoy!
Barb :-)
>
>Steve
Barb Junkkarinen
No toe-foo please! Well, little bits lost in the mix of other things
is okay.....
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Go eat a pound of tofu.<g>
Barb :-)
>
Doug Gosha
OK. But only if it's a pound of "mechanically separated" tofu :")
Doug
Doug Gosha
Barb, I'm sorry. Would you believe that I wrote "Chickem" totally
inadvertently? Hmmmm....didn't think so. :")
Doug
David Wimp
We see stuff hanging down on the right front, but where did it come from?
Something is hanging down at least six inches from JFK's head as can be
determined by comparing 223 and 228. If there was no damage to the left
side of the head, some of it just about had to be from the back.
>and that the vast majority of the matter flew to the front. Darn it
>anyway!
>
>
More is visible toward the front, but that doesn't mean more stuff went in
that direction. Faster moving stuff is less visible because the light
from it gets spread over more of the film. Also, even though spray is
going forward and being blown back, it always disappears right at the back
of JFK's head. Chad Zimmerman posted a clip that was purported to show a
jet effect. Somebody noticed that there appeared to be more matter going
in the direction of the shooter but Chad said there was more matter on the
ground on the side away from the shooter. Spray is not a reliable
indicator of the direction of the shot.
AnthonyMarsh
The vast majority of brain matter did not fly to the front. It flew UP
and somewhat forward.
> Didn't that cotton-pickin' Zapruder guy know how to capture an assassination?
>
> Doug
Barb Junkkarinen
Well, at least with tofu, you don't have to worry about hips and lips!
Kinda funny ... after the tofu posting, my husband called this
afternoon and said he'd had luch at a little Thai place with a friend
of ours .... and he told me he had some sort of stir fry noodley thing
with tofu in it.... I don't think he's ever had tofu before in his
life, or at least not more than once or twice ... and not for years.
You have a tofy conspiracy afoot...don't you?<g>
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
Barb Junkkarinen
Well, I'd like to think so .... then I wouldn't be stuck in this
kettle of chickem soup all alone. Welcome to the pot!<g>
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
Card53
>
>>(*Say, what ever happened to Vince Bugliosi's long-promised anti-Posner,
>>pro-LN book?)
>>
>>
>What made you think he was writting and anti-Posner book?
Say, where'd you find my post? I responded to the original question on 3/26,
then my post promptly disappeared from every newsgroup server I tried. Nice to
see it's floating around somewhere.
To answer your question, I recall that one thing that motivated Bugliosi to
write the book was his desire to correct what he felt was sloppy research on
Posner's part. I'll admit I can't provide a source for this -- it's been a few
years since I've seen Bugliosi's book discussed at all -- but I do remember
that this was the general buzz around here when the book was reportedly in the
works.
David Wimp
At one point he said he was going to take things farther than Posner. He
said Posner did not do a thorough enough job but he was going to show once
and for all the Oswald was the lone assassin. I have been hearing about
this book for over five years. Several publication dates have been set
and then delayed. I have doubts that we will ever see it. He might be
chasing a moving target.
Doug Gosha
223 and 228? You see "something" hanging down "at least" six inches from
JFK's head in these frames?
>>and that the vast majority of the matter flew to the front. Darn it
>>anyway!
>>
>>
>
>More is visible toward the front, but that doesn't mean more stuff went in
>that direction. Faster moving stuff is less visible because the light
>from it gets spread over more of the film. Also, even though spray is
>going forward and being blown back, it always disappears right at the back
>of JFK's head. Chad Zimmerman posted a clip that was purported to show a
>jet effect. Somebody noticed that there appeared to be more matter going
>in the direction of the shooter but Chad said there was more matter on the
>ground on the side away from the shooter. Spray is not a reliable
>indicator of the direction of the shot.
This is ridiculous.
You only say this because you want a shot from the front. If you can look
at the Z film and deny that the carnage was not a result of a shot from
the rear, you are fooling yourself. The only reason the spray appears to
disappear is because it dispersed rapidly.
Doug
Doug Gosha
Ya, whatever. It was still toward the front, not the rear. Nit-picking.
Doug
Doug Gosha
OK, I admit that it wasn't inadvertent. However, I am constantly going
back and correcting my typing because I accidently hit "m" or "n" when I
mean to hit "n" or "m". :")
Doug
Doug Gosha
What is tofu anyway? Soya beans? Do soya beans have hips and lips? I bet
some of those "plants rights" activists would insist that they do.
The Great Tofu Conspiracy (GTC)! 40 years from now and it still won't be
solved!
Doug
Barb Junkkarinen
I have triuble with a few leter combos too ... I guess the worst is my
own name ... it often comes out "brab" ... sigh.<g> Worse is when I am
tyPING ALONG AND LATER discoVER i have DOnE SOMETHING LIke THis. CAPS
ket needs to be relocated to some far corner of the earth on my
keyboard....
Time to make dinner .... but we're not having chickem tonight.<g>
Thanks to Steve, we are going to have artichokes one night this
week...stuffed!
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
>
Barb Junkkarinen
No hips and lips at least, but it is made from soymilk (which is some
how made from soy beans .. haven't a clue how they milk a soy
bean.<g>) Just like curds and whey are separated from milk to make
cheese, the curds and whey of the soymilk is separated to make tofu. I
guess that makes it sort of a non-dairy cheese?
Go figure why anyboby thought of that! I know it floats in soups in
chinese restaurants and shows up in stir fry ... I think that's about
the only way I have ever had it. Seems to me that it would bounce if
made into a round ... kind of like those awful "plastic" mozzarella
balls you can buy in the grocery store....they look that way to me
anyway. Used to buy that stuff (the mozzarella, not tofu) years ago
... then discovered fresh mozzarella and, well, once you do .... ya
never go back to the dry bouncy stuff!
LHO didn't do it, btw ... and I wonder if he ever ate tofu.
>The Great Tofu Conspiracy (GTC)! 40 years from now and it still won't be
>solved!
DID LHO eat it in Japan ... or not? Hmmm .... could there be a
connection to Dallas?
Hmmmmmm.....
Barb :-)
>
>Doug
>
>
Ken West
Look at Zimmerman's turkey shoot. Apply the same criteria re spray
direction for it that you do for Zapruders frames. Using only those
critera, say which side Chad is on.
Ken West
David Wimp
Sure can. It's not that hard to see.
...
223
... 228
The bright area in 323 to the right of and below JFK's head looks like it
could be Jackie's dress in sunlight and the edge is just a shadow line.
However, in 328 JFK has moved forward relative to Jackie and the edge has
moved with his head. Now it is in totally the wrong place to be a shadow
line on Jackie unless you think her head is somehow casting a negative
shadow. The sun is behind Jackie and the sun line is from the upper right
to the lower left.
>
>
>>>and that the vast majority of the matter flew to the front. Darn it
>>>anyway!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>More is visible toward the front, but that doesn't mean more stuff went in
>>that direction. Faster moving stuff is less visible because the light
>>
>>
>>from it gets spread over more of the film. Also, even though spray is
>
>
>>going forward and being blown back, it always disappears right at the back
>>of JFK's head. Chad Zimmerman posted a clip that was purported to show a
>>jet effect. Somebody noticed that there appeared to be more matter going
>>in the direction of the shooter but Chad said there was more matter on the
>>ground on the side away from the shooter. Spray is not a reliable
>>indicator of the direction of the shot.
>>
>>
>
>This is ridiculous.
>
>You only say this because you want a shot from the front. If you can look
>at the Z film and deny that the carnage was not a result of a shot from
>the rear, you are fooling yourself. The only reason the spray appears to
>disappear is because it dispersed rapidly.
>
>
No, I could say that you only think you can interpret the spray because it
seems to support your theory. I don't think you can. I don't think
anybody can. After all, you missed the huge freaking flap hanging off
JFK's head all these years, didn't you? 228 bears an eerie resemblance to
F8 if the dark area is a hole. It's a similar shape and you have the big
flap of scalp in just about the right place to match F8. I think that big
flap is out in front of JFK's head in 313 and then it gets folded up in
314 and later unfolds. Otherwise, you have opaque "spray" in 313 which
suddenly vanishes in 314 and a very similar object, obviously a flap,
appears right next to it. Which makes more sense? The actual spray that
is seen goes forward and gets blown back. That's why it is visible. I
think that spray might be coming off the big flap as it gets whipped
forward.
David Wimp
Doug Gosha
Boy, ain't that the truth! Shift and CAPS LOck, dang it, together is a bad
thing.
>Time to make dinner .... but we're not having chickem tonight.<g>
>Thanks to Steve, we are going to have artichokes one night this
>week...stuffed!
I don't believe I have ever had artichoke. Must be the non-Californian in
me :")
Doug
Barb Junkkarinen
Possibly.<g> Some Californians probably think they invented the dang
things (I can say that because I was born and raised in California
..... fled, er, I mean left, in 1979 for the Pacific Northwest, but
spend plenty of time down there listening to relatives complain about
how they ought to move out .....) Anyway, artichokes .... the
Californians with Italian blood coursing thru their veins of course
know better .... well, hopefully, anyway.
Barb :-)
>
>Doug