Hole In Back Of JFK's Head
lazu...@webtv.net
there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
period.
Not worth listening to another word from them.
At least if some prof. believed the earth was flat now...it would be
rather humorous.
All you need are the cumulative suppressed drawings from the HSCA, and
ARRB-Mortician Robinson-FBI Agents-Sibert & O'Neill etc. along with the
Parkland staff.
Even Dr. Grossman who fortunately we haven' t heard a peep from, since
David Lifton's excellent article on McAdams site, in his drawing, it
shows a hole in the back of the head too large for an entrance. The HSCA
relied on a fraudulent photo- there was no nice little neat wound in the
cowlick- nobody saw that.
David VP
BOH wound was located within DP?
What possible shooting location could have caused a gaping exit wound
here?.......
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
enough to show the matte insertion line. You see wet hair and suddenly
dry hair running in a line across the bottom of the back of the
President's head.
Aaron Hirshberg
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Care to elaborate as to where precisely the assassin who caused that
>BOH wound was located within DP?
Who cares? If you're trying to imply that there was no such location possible,
you'd be a liar.
The wound existed, it's as simple as that.
>What possible shooting location could have caused a gaping exit wound
>here?.......
>
>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3336.jpg
The Grassy Knoll is one location, anything to the side or forward of the limo is
capable of creating such a wound.
Why bother to lie about it, Davey-boy? Why are you such a coward that you have
to snip everything all the time?
Sam
news:7555-44...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
I was impressed with Tom Wilson's work on the matter, though disappointed he
misunderstood the characteristics of the ammunition used and the trajectory,
due to the angle of JFK's head upon impact of the right temple entrance -
the shot did not come from the sewer drain, but from the sniping rifle fired
by Jack Lawrence behind the north knoll fence.
Based on Tom's work, using a copy of the Moorman photo and changing the
gradation of light/dark reveals the hole, as well as the smaller entrance
hole.
Robert Harris
David, you don't need to rely on the word of all these doctors and
nurses. You can get almost as good of a look at JFK's BOH as the
doctors did.
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
But if you believe nothing else I ever tell you, realize that this
damage did NOT occur at Z312-313.
Robert Harris
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Grizzlie Antagonist
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Is one of the most obvious things in this case. Anybody that denies
> there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
> period.
> Not worth listening to another word from them.
There was no hole in the right rear of JFK's head.
Sounds like someone else is fixing to *plonk* me.
lazu...@webtv.net
into the occipital, so the BOH photos can't be accurate, and the HSCA
relied on faulty info. There should be no denying this. Even Humes
talks about the scalp being stretched in his ARRB testimony.
David VP
Sure, the "location" was there....but how likely is it that there was
an assassin firing a gun from such a "location"?
I.E.: From the Overpass bridge or anywhere on the south side of Elm,
which are the only places that could have caused the BOH wound of which
you speak (reasonably-speaking, that is). If not, that was one crazy
zig-zagging bullet after it struck JFK from the Knoll.)
Ben Holmes
The Snipping Coward snipped again...
In article <1148550015.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> If you're trying to imply that there was no such location possible, you'd
>> be a liar."
>
>Sure, the "location" was there....but how likely is it that there was
>an assassin firing a gun from such a "location"?
The wound is exactly where eyewitnesses and the autopsy report puts it. As
Robert Harris points out, you can look at it for yourself on the extant Z-film.
You're just going to have to deal with the fact that a "photograph" of the "back
of JFK's head" is either altered, or a complete forgery.
>I.E.: From the Overpass bridge or anywhere on the south side of Elm,
>which are the only places that could have caused the BOH wound of which
>you speak (reasonably-speaking, that is).
And you're a liar, too. This is why you keep snipping, to stop future lurkers
seeing what you can't answer. Tell everyone what "tangential" means, Davey-boy.
>If not, that was one crazy
>zig-zagging bullet after it struck JFK from the Knoll.)
No, don't confuse the SBT with the *real* facts.
David VP
No, no. I'd never want to do a horrid thing like that. (Would I?)
>> "Tell everyone what "tangential" means, Davey-boy."
I think it's some kind of fruit....isn't it? Or...perhaps it means
"fruitcake"....as in Ben "Better Not Snip" Holmes.
Was I close on either guess?
>> "The Snipping Coward snipped again..."
And will continue to do so whenever I feel the urge.
Here...."have a potato". (Guess what movie that's from.)
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... Snip snip... The coward snips again.
In article <1148568257....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> No, don't confuse the SBT with the *real* facts.
>
>No, no. I'd never want to do a horrid thing like that. (Would I?)
And yet, you snipped what this was in response to. Coward, aren't you?
>> Tell everyone what "tangential" means, Davey-boy.
>
>I think it's some kind of fruit....isn't it? Or...perhaps it means
>"fruitcake"....as in Ben "Better Not Snip" Holmes.
>
>Was I close on either guess?
Coward, aren't you?
>> The Snipping Coward snipped again...
>
>And will continue to do so whenever I feel the urge.
Yep... coward, aren't you?
>Here...."have a potato". (Guess what movie that's from.)
"The Old Dark House". But coward that you are, you can't answer my *relevant*
questions that prove the conspiracy and coverup in the assassination of JFK.
I wonder why?
Grizzlie Antagonist
The Old Dark House.
David VP
Yes. Correct. Nicely done.
I just wanted you to have the pleasure of getting something RIGHT for a
change....unlike your pro-CT stance re. everything to do with the JFK
case.
>> "But coward that you are, you can't answer my *relevant* questions that prove the conspiracy and coverup in the assassination of JFK."
Maybe you ought to go over those "relevant" points again. I think I
missed them. And after you write it all out (again) -- you can tell me
with a straight face (if possible) HOW in the wide, wide world of Patsy
Plots ALL of the ballistics evidence and virtually all of the remainder
of the evidence comes back to implicating dear Judyth-lovin' Lee Oswald
(including the totality of witness accounts in DP, which positively
favor only ONE single shooter and THREE shots only being fired from the
direction of the TSBD)?
(Will I get the standard CT reply of -- "Well, when you "control" all
of the evidence, blah-blah-blecct!" -- Or will I get a "Cowardly
bastard, aren't you Davey-boy?"?
I'll toss a coin now and see.)
Robert Harris
>>> "The Old Dark House".
>
>Yes. Correct. Nicely done.
>I just wanted you to have the pleasure of getting something RIGHT for a
>change....unlike your pro-CT stance re. everything to do with the JFK
>case.
>
>
>>> "But coward that you are, you can't answer my *relevant* questions that prove the conspiracy and coverup in the assassination of JFK."
>
>Maybe you ought to go over those "relevant" points again. I think I
>missed them.
Try this on for size, David:
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
> And after you write it all out (again) -- you can tell me
>with a straight face (if possible) HOW in the wide, wide world of Patsy
>Plots ALL of the ballistics evidence and virtually all of the remainder
>of the evidence comes back to implicating dear Judyth-lovin' Lee Oswald
>(including the totality of witness accounts in DP, which positively
>favor only ONE single shooter
ROFLMAO!!!
Robert Harris
>and THREE shots only being fired from the
>direction of the TSBD)?
>
>(Will I get the standard CT reply of -- "Well, when you "control" all
>of the evidence, blah-blah-blecct!" -- Or will I get a "Cowardly
>bastard, aren't you Davey-boy?"?
>
>I'll toss a coin now and see.)
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
I did.
It didn't fit.
aeffects
own eyes"
You were doing better with your 'DaBug' shtick...
David VP
It suits you...to a tee.
Yes....I'm licking Vince B.'s boots too. I know that. And I'm not
ashamed of that fact (in the least). But the difference is....Vincent's
boots contain some common sense. And I'm more than willing to shine up
boots comprised of things like that.
lazu...@webtv.net
that big hole not seen in the BOH pics, which all the parkland and
autopsy personnel saw?
lazu...@webtv.net
Oliver Stone and his great film JFK over an aging Prosecutor who is like
Barry Bonds now, he had it once, but his halcyon days are long gone.
Sam
news:7641-447...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
> Was Oswald firing a bazooka?
no, but arlen specter is available to frame oswald for firing one, if that
supports skull & bones
David VP
Gee.......there's a shocker.
What a surprise.
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... snip snip... Gutless coward, aren't you?
In article <1148608633.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> The Old Dark House.
>
>Yes. Correct. Nicely done.
>I just wanted you to have the pleasure of getting something RIGHT for a
>change....unlike your pro-CT stance re. everything to do with the JFK
>case.
Funny that I can answer your questions that have nothing to do with the JFK
assassination, and you can't answer my questions that *DIRECTLY* relate to the
evidence and testimony.
>> But coward that you are, you can't answer my *relevant* questions that
>> prove the conspiracy and coverup in the assassination of JFK."
>
>Maybe you ought to go over those "relevant" points again. I think I
>missed them.
Are you *really* asking for me to provide them again? I'll be happy to. Look
forward to a post with your name in it - it'll be posted within a day or two.
And I predict *RIGHT NOW* that you will refuse to answer without snipping the
post. Gutless coward that you are.
>And after you write it all out (again) -- you can tell me
>with a straight face (if possible) HOW in the wide, wide world of Patsy
>Plots ALL of the ballistics evidence
Untrue. CE543, if I recall correctly, could *NOT* have been fired in the MC.
It had no 'chamber mark' that all other cartridge shells had. You can't explain
this... and I don't believe that John has anything on his website about this
topic, so you'll be stumped.
>and virtually all of the remainder
>of the evidence
"virtually"??? You know, of course, that there *IS* evidence of multiple
shooters that day - and a tremendous amount of evidence of a coverup.
>comes back to implicating dear Judyth-lovin' Lee Oswald
>(including the totality of witness accounts in DP, which positively
>favor only ONE single shooter and THREE shots only being fired from the
>direction of the TSBD)?
Careful use of modifiers prevents you from being called a liar. But just for
the benefit of lurkers, there's also a tremendous amount of evidence for *MORE*
than three shots, evidence of only *TWO* shots from the SN, and a great deal of
evidence for multiple directions of shots.
>(Will I get the standard CT reply of -- "Well, when you "control" all
>of the evidence, blah-blah-blecct!"
Don't need to go that far, you can't explain the evidence that was *NOT*
altered.
> -- Or will I get a "Cowardly
>bastard, aren't you Davey-boy?"?
You keep snipping, I'll keep pointing it out. It's cowardly, and dishonest.
>I'll toss a coin now and see.)
I've made *MY* prediction in print. You'll refuse to answer my upcoming post
without snipping it.
John McAdams
>Is one of the most obvious things in this case. Anybody that denies
>there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
>period.
>Not worth listening to another word from them.
>
>At least if some prof. believed the earth was flat now...it would be
>rather humorous.
>
>All you need are the cumulative suppressed drawings from the HSCA, and
>ARRB-Mortician Robinson-FBI Agents-Sibert & O'Neill etc. along with the
>Parkland staff.
>
>Even Dr. Grossman who fortunately we haven' t heard a peep from, since
>David Lifton's excellent article on McAdams site, in his drawing, it
>shows a hole in the back of the head too large for an entrance.
BZZZZZZZ!
Spin altert!
"Too large for an entrance," yes.
But also too small to be the "great defect" that witnesses saw.
Grossman put *that* on the side of the head above the ear.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-3.JPG
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/MD185-2.JPG
>The HSCA
>relied on a fraudulent photo- there was no nice little neat wound in the
>cowlick- nobody saw that.
>
I'm afraid the HSCA got real scientists to authenticate the autopsy
photos.
Not buffs like Harry Livingstone.
Guess what: they are genuine.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<aaronhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Did it *ever* occur to you to look at what real scientists, who
scrutinized the photos 15 ways from Sunday, thought?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
When Groden tried to make silly arguments like this to a bunch of
scientists assembled by the BOSTON GLOBE, he had little luck:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy1.txt
lazu...@webtv.net
of JFK's head. The authentification doesn't mean jack, because every
single medical witness says there was a hole there & it doesn't look
right.
As Horne says it's either1. alteration 2. Scalp being pulled over
3.reconstruction-take yer pick
John Canal
>
>On 24 May 2006 07:23:33 -0700, "aaronhi...@yahoo.com"
><aaronhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The crappy copies of the back of the head photo in HT are still good
>>enough to show the matte insertion line. You see wet hair and suddenly
>>dry hair running in a line across the bottom of the back of the
>>President's head.
>>
>
>Did it *ever* occur to you to look at what real scientists, who
>scrutinized the photos 15 ways from Sunday, thought?
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
>
A few questions for you, .john, if you don't mind.
1. Can you see the skull damage behind the rear scalp in the BOH photos?
Hint: "NO"...neither can anyone else.
2. Is it even remotely possible that the skull is missing behind the scalp
in the BOH all the way down to the EOP?
Hint: "YES"....and, BTW, Boswell admitted that to the ARRB.
3. Is it likely in the minds of most unbiased individuals that
twenty-something witness, including C. Hill (who had a bird's eye view of
the BOH in DP), could be collective wrong about seeing a sizeable
right-rear defect in the back of his head?
Hint: "NO".
4. Would a right-rear defect be proof there was a shot from the front?
Hint: "NO".
5. Is it possible that the lateral x-ray shows the rear skull in place,
albeit fragmented, because one of the prosectors replaced rear skull prior
to the x-rays being taken?
Hint: "YES"....and, BTW, Boswell admitted to the ARRB that he replaced
some rear skull pieces before the X-rays were taken.
6. Were any of the prosectors asked by the WC or HSCA questioners if any
pieces of rear skull were replaced prior to the x-rays?
Hint: "NO".
Thanks for your answers, .john.
Regards,
John Canal
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
One of his better exchanges.<g>
Barb :_)
>
>Regards,
>
>John Canal
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 24 May 2006 07:23:33 -0700, "aaronhi...@yahoo.com"
> <aaronhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The crappy copies of the back of the head photo in HT are still good
> >enough to show the matte insertion line. You see wet hair and suddenly
> >dry hair running in a line across the bottom of the back of the
> >President's head.
> >
>
> Did it *ever* occur to you to look at what real scientists, who
> scrutinized the photos 15 ways from Sunday, thought?
ROFLMAO!!
Why do we need scientists to look at the autopsy photos, which Dr.
Boswell stated, were taken *after* the head was reassembled?
We can see the condition of the BOH for ourselves, all too clearly, in
the Zapruder film:
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
There is no doubt at all, that the BOH was exactly as the doctors said
it was - totally devastated.
Robert Harris
mikesm...@hotmail.com
"They also said the fact that other photographs of the back of
the head had been taken from the same perspective, but from a
slightly different angle, creating a "stereo" view which precluded
the possibility that an alteration of one photo would escape
undetected."
It would be interesting to have the same examination done by a news
media with the 2006 technology and see what the results are.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Hello Prof- you are a lying sack if you deny there was hole in the back
> of JFK's head.
"There was no hole in the back of JFK's head," Grizzlie Antagonist said
for the second time getting in lazuli's face.
Ben Holmes
><aaronhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The crappy copies of the back of the head photo in HT are still good
>>enough to show the matte insertion line. You see wet hair and suddenly
>>dry hair running in a line across the bottom of the back of the
>>President's head.
>>
>
>Did it *ever* occur to you to look at what real scientists, who
>scrutinized the photos 15 ways from Sunday, thought?
Those who look at good copies of the BOH photo aren't going to be swayed by
"experts", John.
Even the autopsy said that there was a hole in the back of the head. All you
have, John, is one altered or faked BOH photo... that isn't even consistent with
the other photos.
Ben Holmes
What John won't tell you is that it's not *possible* to "authenticate" the BOH
photo.
>Not buffs like Harry Livingstone.
>
>Guess what: they are genuine.
Not when the BOH photo doesn't show what everyone knows was there, John.
Robert Harris
john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:04:09 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Is one of the most obvious things in this case. Anybody that denies
> >there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
> >period.
> >Not worth listening to another word from them.
> >
> >At least if some prof. believed the earth was flat now...it would be
> >rather humorous.
> >
> >All you need are the cumulative suppressed drawings from the HSCA, and
> >ARRB-Mortician Robinson-FBI Agents-Sibert & O'Neill etc. along with the
> >Parkland staff.
> >
> >Even Dr. Grossman who fortunately we haven' t heard a peep from, since
> >David Lifton's excellent article on McAdams site, in his drawing, it
> >shows a hole in the back of the head too large for an entrance.
>
> BZZZZZZZ!
>
> Spin altert!
Why are you wasting time, debating what other people said, when you can
see for yourself, the same massive, BOH damage that those doctors saw?
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <44778268...@129.250.170.82>,
> john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:04:09 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> >Is one of the most obvious things in this case. Anybody that denies
>> >there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
>> >period.
>> >Not worth listening to another word from them.
>> >
>> >At least if some prof. believed the earth was flat now...it would be
>> >rather humorous.
>> >
>> >All you need are the cumulative suppressed drawings from the HSCA, and
>> >ARRB-Mortician Robinson-FBI Agents-Sibert & O'Neill etc. along with the
>> >Parkland staff.
>> >
>> >Even Dr. Grossman who fortunately we haven' t heard a peep from, since
>> >David Lifton's excellent article on McAdams site, in his drawing, it
>> >shows a hole in the back of the head too large for an entrance.
>>
>> BZZZZZZZ!
>>
>> Spin altert!
>
>Why are you wasting time, debating what other people said, when you can
>see for yourself, the same massive, BOH damage that those doctors saw?
>
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
>
>
This is like Tom and the "bullet" in the photo on the Dealey Plaza
infield.
You are seeing what you want to see, Bob.
Ben Holmes
I wonder why John keeps ducking the simple question: what was the title of this
photo when it was published in the Dallas newspapers?
>You are seeing what you want to see, Bob.
Robert simply sees what dozens of closeup eyewitnesses reported... and what the
autopsy report stated.
While it might be missed by someone not familiar with the case - it's quite
plain and obvious in these frames once you know what you're looking at. John is
a dishonest saleman for the WCR.
>.John
Anthony Marsh
A caption to a photo or the title of an article does not prove a fact.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <44778268...@129.250.170.82>,
> john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:04:09 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > >Is one of the most obvious things in this case. Anybody that denies
> > >there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
> > >period.
> > >Not worth listening to another word from them.
> > >
> > >At least if some prof. believed the earth was flat now...it would be
> > >rather humorous.
> > >
> > >All you need are the cumulative suppressed drawings from the HSCA, and
> > >ARRB-Mortician Robinson-FBI Agents-Sibert & O'Neill etc. along with the
> > >Parkland staff.
> > >
> > >Even Dr. Grossman who fortunately we haven' t heard a peep from, since
> > >David Lifton's excellent article on McAdams site, in his drawing, it
> > >shows a hole in the back of the head too large for an entrance.
> >
> > BZZZZZZZ!
> >
> > Spin altert!
>
> Why are you wasting time, debating what other people said, when you can
> see for yourself, the same massive, BOH damage that those doctors saw?
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
No BOH damage. Just like in the Moorman photo, no BOH damage. In the
back, he still has the same nice head of tossled red hair that the
teeny-boppers went wild over.
The damage is ALL in the front. ALL of it is in the front.
If the picture was taken from behind and from a distance, you'd see
nothing other than a red-headed man leaning forward in an automobile -
as in the Moorman photo taken from behind, you see nothing other than a
man in an automobile leaning to his left.
Robert Harris
McAdams) wrote:
Unbelievable!!
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
Robert Harris
>
>.John
>--
>Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Ben Holmes
It *is* however, excellent proof of what the *photographer* and/or reporter were
thinking that they had.
And something that John continues to duck, as well as doesn't seem to mention on
his website.
Why, Tony, do you suppose that John doesn't feel it necessary to mention this in
his website article on the topic?
Why, Tony, do you suppose that John keeps ducking this question?
And do you ever plan to provide any citations whatsoever for your false
allegation of Dr. Humes burning anything at all on Saturday morning? Or retract
your lie?
And, once again, I'm sure that the WC would be proud of your defense...
>>> You are seeing what you want to see, Bob.
>>
>>
>> Robert simply sees what dozens of closeup eyewitnesses reported... and
>> what the autopsy report stated.
>>
>> While it might be missed by someone not familiar with the case - it's
>> quite plain and obvious in these frames once you know what you're looking
>> at. John is a dishonest saleman for the WCR.
So too is Tony. Just a more carefully hidden one.
>>> .John
Robert Harris
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL!!
You gotta be on drugs.
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
Robert Harris
>Just like in the Moorman photo, no BOH damage. In the
>back, he still has the same nice head of tossled red hair that the
>teeny-boppers went wild over.
>
>The damage is ALL in the front. ALL of it is in the front.
>
>If the picture was taken from behind and from a distance, you'd see
>nothing other than a red-headed man leaning forward in an automobile -
>as in the Moorman photo taken from behind, you see nothing other than a
>man in an automobile leaning to his left.
>
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
lazu...@webtv.net
rear of the head. How do you account for the fact that several Parkland
physicians, including the Chief of Neurosurgery, all reported seeing
cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound? The cerebellum is in the
lower portion of the occipital region. A bullet entering the cowlick,
the LN entry of choice, and exiting in the right front of the head would
miss the cerebellum by a country mile. Due to its finer striations,
cerebellum tissue is readilly distinguishable from that of the cerebrum,
so these doctors knew what they saw. And even if the entry were at the
EOP, the hole would not be large enough to account for the amount of
cerebellar material observed exuding onto the table. This fact can only
be explained by a large exit hole in the posterior region of the head.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >back, he still has the same nice head of tossled red hair that the
> >teeny-boppers went wild over.
> >
> >The damage is ALL in the front. ALL of it is in the front.
> >
> >If the picture was taken from behind and from a distance, you'd see
> >nothing other than a red-headed man leaning forward in an automobile -
> >as in the Moorman photo taken from behind, you see nothing other than a
> >man in an automobile leaning to his left.
> LOL!!
>
> You gotta be on drugs.
>
> Robert Harris
Ha ha ha. In an unmoderated forum, there is no non sequitur that a
left-wing lunatic posturing as an "honest man" will evade.
Grizzlie Antagonist
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Got a question for you folks who deny there was a major wound in the
> rear of the head.
Well, if there WAS a major wound in the rear of JFK's head, then that
tuft of red on the back of his head that is still perfectly visible in
all of the post-313 frames - which I had supposed to be his hair - must
actually have been a reflection of the sun setting --- in the east at
12:30 in the afternoon.
> How do you account for the fact that several Parkland
> physicians, including the Chief of Neurosurgery, all reported seeing
> cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound?
This has only been covered about a dozen times or so by John McAdams.
lazu...@webtv.net
who calls himself Grizzlie Antagonist...thank you.
lazu...@webtv.net
the combined Medical Personnel, or rely on some HSCA consultants that
take everything presented to them i.e. photographic x-rays etc. at face
value, and not in context of corroboated sworn testimony, or the
earliest statements is not thinking.
slatconsulting
@news20.forteinc.com:
I see two things:
1) the noon day sun glistening off his (undisturbed) chestnut hair
2) A huge defect above his right ear
What I don't see: a hole in the back of his head.
BTW, for a hole to be where you ALLEGE it was (posterior right), the shot
would have had to come from dead center or from JFK's left, not the Knoll.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> I'll go with the 20 plus medical personnel
20? Why not 50 or 100?
>not some lone nut asshole
> who calls himself Grizzlie Antagonist...thank you.
You have long hair and a beard, don't you? And a Che Guevara poster
hanging in your dormitory?
Grizzlie Antagonist
"Not thinking"? What happened to "lying sack of shit"? The two
concepts are different in my mind. Which one have you settled on?
Anyone who would take the word of a conspiracy theorist about what
third parties are supposed to have said is not thinking. I don't
believe you about what the "combined medical personnel" are supposed to
have said, and anyway, the Zapruder film shows that the back of his
head is undisturbed. You'd be better off arguing that someone
performed a mercy killing after the initial gunfire and on the way to
the hospital.
Whistler
> left-wing lunatic posturing as an "honest man" will evade.
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
"Human freedom for Needleman consisted of being aware of the absurdity
of life. 'God is silent,' he was fond of saying, 'now if only we can
get Man to shut up.'"
- Woody Allen, "Remembering Needleman"
Robert Harris
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Please excuse the interuption gentlemen, but I am sure you never
intended to snip the links to these images, which so positively,
confirm the pristine condition of the rear of the President's head:
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
Nor, I presume, did you intend to delete your own detailed analysis of
these images:
"Just like in the Moorman photo, no BOH damage. In the
back, he still has the same nice head of tossled red hair that the
teeny-boppers went wild over.
The damage is ALL in the front. ALL of it is in the front."
It is indeed a shame, that Grizzlie, who tries so desperately to be
funny, gets so upset when he actually is:-)
Robert Harris
Grizzlie Antagonist
Oh, I wouldn't say "pristine". His hair is still touseled, as it so
often was on the campaign trail. But the rear of his head is undamaged
by a bullet certainly, or there'd be no hair to speak of. Any fool can
see that.
But I actually DID intend to snip those links. Yes, they confirm no
damage to the back of his head, but since any fool can see this, I
didn't think it necessary to belabor the point.
> Nor, I presume, did you intend to delete your own detailed analysis of
> these images:
>
> "Just like in the Moorman photo, no BOH damage. In the
> back, he still has the same nice head of tossled red hair that the
> teeny-boppers went wild over.
>
> The damage is ALL in the front. ALL of it is in the front."
Yes? And? I didn't think it necessary to belabor these points, but I
appreciate your belaboring them for me.
> It is indeed a shame, that Grizzlie, who tries so desperately to be
> funny, gets so upset when he actually is.
It is indeed a shame that Robert Harris, who prides himself on his
"honesty", could not be trusted with the possession of a red-hot stove.
lazu...@webtv.net
for that matter, how to account for the observations by the Parkland
doctors confirming that cerebellar tissue was oozing out the posterior
headwound, and still maintain a right frontal exit, he took the standard
course by saying McAdams has answered this many times. Of course, this
doesn't mean diddley squat to me or probably any other person who has
studied the medical evidence in this case.
In the nine years that I have been reading this forum, I have never once
seen where McAdams, or any other nutter, explain this fact away, and I
am extremely doubtful they can. I am not going to take the word of
McAdams"s medical expertise(???) over that of several doctors, including
a neurosurgeon, who should know cerebellum when he sees it. So put up or
shut up. Better just shut up period.
By the way Grizz, when you asked if I had a beard and long hair, were
you comparing me to Jesus? If so, thanks. Now go and find a pointed
bucket and stick your head in it. It should be a perfect fit.
Grizzlie Antagonist
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Well as they say; "Grizz happens". When I asked how he, or any LN'er
> for that matter, how to account for the observations by the Parkland
> doctors confirming that cerebellar tissue was oozing out the posterior
> headwound, and still maintain a right frontal exit, he took the standard
> course by saying McAdams has answered this many times.
And so he has.
> Of course, this
> doesn't mean diddley squat to me or probably any other person who has
> studied the medical evidence in this case.
Why not just look at the Zapruder frames? REALLY look at them, I mean?
> In the nine years that I have been reading this forum, I have never once
> seen where McAdams, or any other nutter, explain this fact away, and I
> am extremely doubtful they can. I am not going to take the word of
> McAdams"s medical expertise(???) over that of several doctors, including
> a neurosurgeon, who should know cerebellum when he sees it. So put up or
> shut up. Better just shut up period.
What if I don't shut up?
> By the way Grizz, when you asked if I had a beard and long hair, were
> you comparing me to Jesus?
No, to Abbie Hoffman. Or Jerry Rubin. Go to Havana, happy hippy, and
smoke a joint with Fidel.
>If so, thanks. Now go and find a pointed
> bucket and stick your head in it. It should be a perfect fit.
That depends on the size of the bucket.
Robert Harris
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
Robert Harris
>
>
>
> > It is indeed a shame, that Grizzlie, who tries so desperately to be
> > funny, gets so upset when he actually is.
>
>
>
> It is indeed a shame that Robert Harris, who prides himself on his
> "honesty", could not be trusted with the possession of a red-hot stove.
>
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Ben Holmes
Another convert to the "occipital is not posterior" theory of anatomy.
Too bad that they left so much in the second autopsy report...
Grizzlie Antagonist
That's a good idea. I've been running short on random signatures, but
I've been too busy to go shopping for more of them. This would save
time.
lazu...@webtv.net
discuss the evidence, you only disrupt with your inane wisecracks.
Anyhow, quit deferring to McAdams and try to offer a reasonable
explanation of how the medicos at Parkland saw cerbellum oozing out of a
posterior headwound. How could they all make such an elementary mistake?
Even I can tell cerebellum from cerebrum, and I certainly know the back
of my head from the front. Do you? Check out Gray's Anatomy.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Ha ha ha. No, you answer me.
How can anyone without long hair and a beard, a picture of Che Guevara
hanging over the bed in his dormitory, and rock cocaine in his dresser
drawer possibly look at Zapruder frames 335 and 337 and argue that
there was an exit wound at the rear of the head?
And then answer me one thing more. Who is it that you want to
retaliate against based upon the false premise of a JFK conspiracy?
Who is it that you want an excuse to kill?
lazu...@webtv.net
answer your stupid question just this once. No I don't have long hair
and a beard, I don't have a picture of Che Guevara, I don't have a
dormitory room (I've been out of college for fifty years), and I've
never used cocaine. So knock off the B.S.
I know you view the Z film as sacrosanct, and probably the autopsy
photos as well. I don't, but that's not the point. Just for the hell of
it, put the Z film aside for the moment, and pretend it doesn't exist,
and answer this simple request. Out of the couple dozen witnesses to
JFK's body, please name one person, just one, who stated there was no
wound in the back of the head, and who agrees with the BOH photos which
show no damage?
Robert Harris
>Grizz, since all you want to do is belch out personal insults, I'll
>answer your stupid question just this once. No I don't have long hair
>and a beard, I don't have a picture of Che Guevara, I don't have a
>dormitory room (I've been out of college for fifty years), and I've
>never used cocaine. So knock off the B.S.
>I know you view the Z film as sacrosanct, and probably the autopsy
>photos as well. I don't, but that's not the point. Just for the hell of
>it, put the Z film aside for the moment, and pretend it doesn't exist,
I don't think you understand, exactly how looney toons, this clown
really is. Here are the frames he is referring to:
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
Robert Harris
>and answer this simple request. Out of the couple dozen witnesses to
>JFK's body, please name one person, just one, who stated there was no
>wound in the back of the head, and who agrees with the BOH photos which
>show no damage?
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Robert Harris
I never in my life, claimed there was a hole in the posterior right
section of the head.
I said we can easily see massive damage in the BOH, in the links that
you snipped and altered.
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
The damage was in the upper-rear of the head - a fact that was also
corroborated by Dr. Boswell, in his drawing, depicting a much larger
(17 cm) defect at the top of the head, than Humes described.
By that measurement, we know the defect extended to a point inferior
to the cowlick wound and into the occipital area.
You can learn more about this in the following articles:
http://jfkhistory.com/reply/reply.html
and
http://jfkhistory.com/2ndheadshot/2ndheadshot.html
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
>
>On 28 May 2006 10:17:53 -0400, slatconsulting <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>reha...@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in news:4478f2d5.35454000
>>@news20.forteinc.com:
>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/z33
>>
>>I see two things:
>>
>>1) the noon day sun glistening off his (undisturbed) chestnut hair
>>2) A huge defect above his right ear
>>
>>What I don't see: a hole in the back of his head.
>>
>>BTW, for a hole to be where you ALLEGE it was (posterior right), the shot
>>would have had to come from dead center or from JFK's left, not the Knoll.
>
>I never in my life, claimed there was a hole in the posterior right
>section of the head.
>
>I said we can easily see massive damage in the BOH, in the links that
>you snipped and altered.
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
>
>http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
>
>The damage was in the upper-rear of the head - a fact that was also
>corroborated by Dr. Boswell, in his drawing, depicting a much larger
>(17 cm) defect at the top of the head, than Humes described.
>
>By that measurement, we know the defect extended to a point inferior
>to the cowlick wound and into the occipital area.
We don't need the measurement to know that it went into the occipital - Humes
declares so in the autopsy report.
And, of course, if the wound merely *touches* the line between the occipital and
the parietal, it *MUST* exist to some extent in THE BACK OF THE HEAD. Since no
part of the occipital can be described as other than the back of the head.
For that matter, a wound (a small one, granted) could exist ENTIRELY in the
parietal, and still be in the BACK OF THE HEAD.
jim....@fuse.net
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:04:09 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >Is one of the most obvious things in this case. Anybody that denies
> > > >there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head is a lying sack
> > > >period.
> > > >Not worth listening to another word from them.
> > > >
> > > >At least if some prof. believed the earth was flat now...it would be
> > > >rather humorous.
> > > >
> > > >All you need are the cumulative suppressed drawings from the HSCA, and
> > > >ARRB-Mortician Robinson-FBI Agents-Sibert & O'Neill etc. along with the
> > > >Parkland staff.
> > > >
> > > >Even Dr. Grossman who fortunately we haven' t heard a peep from, since
> > > >David Lifton's excellent article on McAdams site, in his drawing, it
> > > >shows a hole in the back of the head too large for an entrance.
> > >
> > > BZZZZZZZ!
> > >
> > > Spin altert!
> >
> > Why are you wasting time, debating what other people said, when you can
> > see for yourself, the same massive, BOH damage that those doctors saw?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/z335.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
>
>
> back, he still has the same nice head of tossled red hair that the
> teeny-boppers went wild over.
>
> The damage is ALL in the front. ALL of it is in the front.
>
> nothing other than a red-headed man leaning forward in an automobile -
> as in the Moorman photo taken from behind, you see nothing other than a
> man in an automobile leaning to his left.
GA How do you reconcile your description of no damage to the BOH in a
photo with the mortician's first hand OBSERVATION with the actual
remains of JFK in his ARRB testimony?
(Quote)
MD63, HSCA interview with mortician Thomas Robinson of Gawler Funeral
Home(which wasn't released until 1992 by the ARRB):
Purdy: Could you tell me how large the opening had been...?
Robinson: ...I would say about the size of a small orange
Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the
shape?
Robinson: Three(inches)
Purdy: And the shape?
Robinson: Circular
Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or ragged?
Robinson: Ragged
Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located?
Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head
Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up?
Robinson: I would say pretty much between them.
Purdy: Were you the one responsible for closing those wounds in the
head?
Robinson: We all worked on it...They brought a piece of heavy duty
rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head...
Purdy: You had to close the wound in the back of the head using the
rubber?
Robinson: It had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in
the hair and the skin pulled back over...and stitched into that piece
of rubber.
(End Quote)
Put that together with Clint Hill's in the limo in Dealey Plaza first
hand observation and Nurse Diana Bowrown's in the limo at Parkland and
the Parkland ER and the clean up after JFK was pronounced dead first
hand observations and tell us you KNOW FOR SURE there was no hole in
the back of JFK's skull. You probably also believe the lateral x-rays
that show all the bone pieces in place in JFK's skull, right? How do
you suppose that was done when there was a hole (without any bone)
about the size of an orange in the back of JFK's skull at Parkland
Hospital in Dallas(Bowron) AND a hole the size of an orange in the back
of JFK's skull at the Bethesda Hospital morgue(Robinson)? Just
curious. Regards, Jim
lazu...@webtv.net
everybody see where Mortician Robinson told of the head being
reconstructed?
Anthony Marsh
You can't put that together. The two men are describing different times
and different conditions of the head. Hill saw the wound before the
scalp was reflected. Robinson saw the wound after the autopsy was over
and all those loose bones in the back of the head fell out. Apples and
oranges.
Ben Holmes
Ah! The apologist for the WCR speaks!
Tell us, Tony... was there a large hole in the back of JFK's head?
Sam
news:776-447D...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
> Yup. No doubts whatsoever-except to the lone nut flat earth crowd. Did
> everybody see where Mortician Robinson told of the head being
> reconstructed?
or at least everybody who doesn't have reality spoonfed to them by a censor?
jim....@fuse.net
Tony you can say what you want about the apples and the oranges but
this is what Clint Hill said and when.
(Quote)
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC
Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I
arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer,
General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six
inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal
column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull.
Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the
body for placement in the casket. A new casket had been obtained from
Gawler Mortuary in which the body was to be placed. I went back to the
17th Floor of the hospital at approximately 3:10 a.m. The President's body
was taken from the U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland, at 3:56 a.m.,
accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy, in the rear of a
U.S. Navy ambulance driven by SA Greer. ASAIC Kellerman rode in the right
front seat. I rode in the right front seat of a White House limousine
immediately behind the ambulance. The motorcade was accompanied by
motorcycle police and arrived at the White House at 4:24 a.m. The casket
was taken immediately to the East Room and placed in the center of the
room on a catephalt.
/s/ Clinton J. Hill
Special Agent
U.S. Secret Service
(UnQuote)
So Tony, maybe you can tell me how the lateral x-ray that shows all the
bones in JFK's skull was made when there was a HOLE about the size of an
orange in the back of JFK's skull according to Tom Robinson, one of the
morticians from Gawlers who was working on the remains of JFK before
placing him in the casket. Regards, Jim
Anthony Marsh
Not the way you mean. The large hole on the right side extended into the
back of JFK's head.
Ben Holmes
Tell me "how I mean it" that is contrary to the autopsy report, Tony.
And I repeat, was there a large hole in the back of JFK's head? Give us a
description, anatomically speaking, of where *YOU* believe it was.
Anthony Marsh
Again, try to pay attention. Those are two different times. The X-ray
was taken before the brain was removed. Robinson saw the head after the
brain had been removed.
Ben Holmes
The question wasn't answered, as all can note. Tony is our resident "wolf in
sheep's clothing". Pretending to be a CT'er, he holds a remarkable number of
LNT'er beliefs.
Let's *simplify* the question. We know, because the autopsy report, as well as
dozens of eyewitnesses state so, that there was a hole in the parietal-occipital
area. The autopsy is *SPECIFIC* that this hole was actually devoid of both bone
and scalp. If it was devoid of bone, and it "extended" into the occipital - why
doesn't the lateral X-ray show this?
The testimony is that the X-rays were taken *BEFORE* late arriving bone
fragments, therefore before any possible 'reconstruction'.
So Tony... again: "So Tony, maybe you can tell me how the lateral x-ray that
shows all the bones in JFK's skull was made when there was a HOLE about the size
of an orange in the back of JFK's skull according..." to the autopsy report, and
dozens of eyewitnesses. At ALL times. (unless, of course, you can produce an
eyewitness that says there was no wound in the back of JFK's head anytime
*after* 11/22/63 12:30pm.)
Anthony Marsh
You mean it like the drawing in Six Seconds in Dallas.
> And I repeat, was there a large hole in the back of JFK's head? Give us a
> description, anatomically speaking, of where *YOU* believe it was.
>
And I repeat that no there was not a large hole in the back of the head
the way you mean it. You'd love to trick me into making a simplistic yes
or no answer to declare victory either way. Sorry, but I do not have to
fall into your traps.
Ben Holmes
What part of "Tell me "how I mean it" that is contrary to the autopsy report,
Tony." couldn't you understand?
>> And I repeat, was there a large hole in the back of JFK's head? Give us a
>> description, anatomically speaking, of where *YOU* believe it was.
>
>And I repeat that no there was not a large hole in the back of the head
>the way you mean it. You'd love to trick me into making a simplistic yes
>or no answer to declare victory either way. Sorry, but I do not have to
>fall into your traps.
What part of "Give us a description, anatomically speaking, of where *YOU*
believe it was." did you not understand?
This sounds *exactly* like what LNT'ers like to do. Stay on speculation and
generalities, and stay as far as possible away from specifics and evidence.
David VP
ANY of the wounds were said to be located, Ben-boy's still gonna get
his "conspiracy" and "multiple shooters" into the act...no matter what,
and no matter how stupid he sounds doing so.
Those are the facts re. BH, and everybody surely knows this by now.
He's invested too many keystrokes in conspiracy to give up the ship now
(at least until VB sets him straight at any rate). So, we'll just have
to live with Benji's nuttiness and lack of overall common sense.
The Way Things Happened On 11/22 (via CS&L):
1.) ONE bullet entry hole on the back of JFK's cranium = ONE shot hit
him in the head from behind.
2.) Lack of any entry hole on the frontal portion of JFK's cranium = No
bullet struck JFK in the head from the front.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Way Things Happened On 11/22 Via BKL (aka: Ben-Kook Logic):
1.) One bullet entry wound on the back of JFK's head and the lack of
any entry wound on the front of JFK's head = JFK MUST, therefore, have
been struck in the head by a James Files-like frontal/Knoll sniper on
11/22. Evidence doesn't fit, of course, but I (Ben) am in CT-Land, so
I'm forced to buy into this scenario.
2.) Ben's a kook/nuthatch -- so he'll support ANYTHING with the
initials "CT" surrounding it. Period.
lazu...@webtv.net
the cowlick? That's an impossibility, you know. Where did the
"cerebellum on the table", reported by several Parkland Docs, including
the Chief of Neurosurgery, come from? Out your wound in the side/ front
of the head? I hope you realize that also is an impossibility, since the
cerebellum is in the lower occipital area , below the cowlick. Only a
sizable wound in the posterior region of the head will exude
"cerebellum" onto the table. When your horse dies, don't you think it's
time to dismount?
David VP
Question: How many ENTRY WOUNDS were on JFK's head on 11/22/63?
Also........
See "NOVA: WHO SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY?" (1988; PBS-TV).
Is Paul Peters a rotten, lying scumbag in that NOVA Special when he
said he was mistaken about the "cerebellum" reference.
"That only goes to show how even a professional can make a mistake in a
moment of ur-gen-cy..." -- Dr. P. Peters; 1988
Anthony Marsh
> Lazuli.....
>
> Question: How many ENTRY WOUNDS were on JFK's head on 11/22/63?
>
Only one, in the frontal bone.
Anthony Marsh
The autopsy does not describe a wound like the drawing in Six Seconds in
Dallas.
>
>>> And I repeat, was there a large hole in the back of JFK's head? Give us a
>>> description, anatomically speaking, of where *YOU* believe it was.
>> And I repeat that no there was not a large hole in the back of the head
>> the way you mean it. You'd love to trick me into making a simplistic yes
>> or no answer to declare victory either way. Sorry, but I do not have to
>> fall into your traps.
>
>
> What part of "Give us a description, anatomically speaking, of where *YOU*
> believe it was." did you not understand?
>
I said on the right side of the head extending into the rear of the
head. Do you want a drawing? What's the matter with Humes's drawing for
the ARRB?
>
> This sounds *exactly* like what LNT'ers like to do. Stay on speculation and
> generalities, and stay as far as possible away from specifics and evidence.
>
There is a vast difference between the wound on the skull versus the
wound on the scalp.
Ben Holmes
What part of "Give us a description, ANATOMICALLY SPEAKING, of where *YOU*
believe it was." did you not understand?
Do you know how to spell occipital? Can you admit that the wound extended into
the occipital?
It's a simple admission, Tony... Describe the wound ANATOMICALLY.
>>
>> This sounds *exactly* like what LNT'ers like to do. Stay on speculation and
>> generalities, and stay as far as possible away from specifics and evidence.
>>
>
>There is a vast difference between the wound on the skull versus the
>wound on the scalp.
Nope. Not according to the autopsy report.
Nor will you be able to cite ANYTHING from the autopsy report that would allow
you to assert such an idea.
Now, was the large wound on the back of the head devoid of bone and scalp? And
take the time to *CITE* for anything contrary to what the autopsy report stated.
Ben Holmes
Snip and duck... snip and duck...
In article <1149230938.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>It wouldn't make any difference, Ben-boy. No matter WHERE on the head
>ANY of the wounds were said to be located, Ben-boy's still gonna get
>his "conspiracy" and "multiple shooters" into the act...no matter what,
>and no matter how stupid he sounds doing so.
>
>Those are the facts re. BH, and everybody surely knows this by now.
>He's invested too many keystrokes in conspiracy to give up the ship now
>(at least until VB sets him straight at any rate). So, we'll just have
>to live with Benji's nuttiness and lack of overall common sense.
Did anyone note any evidential facts listed above?
>The Way Things Happened On 11/22 (via CS&L):
>
>1.) ONE bullet entry hole on the back of JFK's cranium = ONE shot hit
>him in the head from behind.
But you can't believe this... for *they* said that it entered near the EOP.
Nor can you believe them about the large wound, for *they* stated that it
extended into the occipital.
>2.) Lack of any entry hole on the frontal portion of JFK's cranium = No
>bullet struck JFK in the head from the front.
Actually, you can see what could easily be a bullet entry hole on JFK's right
temple in one of the autopsy photos.
But a frontal entry is not needed for the large wound on the back of JFK's
head... as I've previously discussed.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>The Way Things Happened On 11/22 Via BKL (aka: Ben-Kook Logic):
>
>1.) One bullet entry wound on the back of JFK's head and the lack of
>any entry wound on the front of JFK's head = JFK MUST, therefore, have
>been struck in the head by a James Files-like frontal/Knoll sniper on
>11/22. Evidence doesn't fit, of course, but I (Ben) am in CT-Land, so
>I'm forced to buy into this scenario.
I'm drowning in straw...
>2.) Ben's a kook/nuthatch -- so he'll support ANYTHING with the
>initials "CT" surrounding it. Period.
Provably untrue. As well documented in this newsgroup over the years.
By the way, Davey-boy, are you working your way through the questions that *YOU*
asked for?
Do you intend on answering *any* of them?
jim....@fuse.net
Really? So Tony, you're saying the hole in the back of JFK's skull
that Nurse Diana Bowron observed when she was washing the blood from
JFK's hair at Parkland that was big enough for her to put her fist in
is not the same orange sized hole in the back of JFK's skull that the
mortician Tom Robinson had to cover with a round shaped rubber patch?
And you know this for a fact do you? And you really think the
difference is the removal of the brain after the x-rays were taken?
And if I understand your hypothesis the missing piece of bone in the
back of JFK's skull was put into place for the x-rays and removed
before the mortician did the final preparation of JFK's remains without
the piece of bone that covered the hole in the back of the head? And
that's why they had to use a piece of rubber that was custom cut from a
piece of turnequet to fill the hole in the back of the head? IF what
you say is true Tony, then why didn't they just use the original
missing piece of bone to cover the hole in the back of the head that
Clint Hill saw and Diana Bowron saw in Dallas instead of the piece of
rubber that Robinson had to use to cover the hole in the back of JFK's
skull at Bethesda? Or had it gone missing again? Regards, Jim
David VP
asked for?"
No.
>> "Do you intend on answering *any* of them?"
No. Of course not.
I just want to see how many times you'll post the same silly
already-debunked CT tripe. I think it's up to 7 or 8 times now
(possibly more). I'm hoping for an even two-dozen.
Besides, Bud did a very ample job of answering your tripe last
time....point-by-point.
Ben Holmes
Snip and duck... snip and duck... The gutless coward snips again...
In article <1149287084.0...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> By the way, Davey-boy, are you working your way through the questions
>> that *YOU* asked for?
>
>No.
Yep... predicted it. You're quite predictable in some ways.
>> Do you intend on answering *any* of them?
>
>No. Of course not.
Gutless coward, aren't you?
Don't worry... they'll be posted again from time to time.
>I just want to see how many times you'll post the same silly
>already-debunked CT tripe.
Feel free to cite *ANY* 'debunking' of any of the questions I posed.
Your problem, of course, is that you can't.
>I think it's up to 7 or 8 times now
>(possibly more). I'm hoping for an even two-dozen.
Many of the questions I posted have never been posted by me before. But don't
let the facts get in the way of your lies...
>Besides, Bud did a very ample job of answering your tripe last
>time....point-by-point.
I doubt it. I plonked him long ago for his ignorance and lying ability.
But feel free to cut & paste his answers as yours, and be ready to defend them
when I rip them to shreds...
You won't, of course. Too gutless.
Ben Holmes
This is the snipped material that Davey-boy was too gutless to respond to.
In article <e5phh...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
David VP
Gee, what a shocker.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Snip and duck... snip and duck... The gutless coward snips again...
>
>
> In article <1149287084.0...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> By the way, Davey-boy, are you working your way through the questions
> >> that *YOU* asked for?
> >
> >No.
>
>
> Yep... predicted it. You're quite predictable in some ways.
>
>
>
> >> Do you intend on answering *any* of them?
> >
> >No. Of course not.
>
>
> Gutless coward, aren't you?
>
> Don't worry... they'll be posted again from time to time.
>
>
> >I just want to see how many times you'll post the same silly
> >already-debunked CT tripe.
>
>
> Feel free to cite *ANY* 'debunking' of any of the questions I posed.
>
> Your problem, of course, is that you can't.
>
>
> >I think it's up to 7 or 8 times now
> >(possibly more). I'm hoping for an even two-dozen.
>
>
> Many of the questions I posted have never been posted by me before. But don't
> let the facts get in the way of your lies...
>
>
> >Besides, Bud did a very ample job of answering your tripe last
> >time....point-by-point.
>
> I doubt it. I plonked him long ago for his ignorance and lying ability.
Coward. <snicker>
Anthony Marsh
Oh really? Why am I not surprised that you would say that?
> that Nurse Diana Bowron observed when she was washing the blood from
> JFK's hair at Parkland that was big enough for her to put her fist in
> is not the same orange sized hole in the back of JFK's skull that the
> mortician Tom Robinson had to cover with a round shaped rubber patch?
> And you know this for a fact do you? And you really think the
I have no idea what you are mumbling about. The wound Bowron described
is where she packed in gauze strips. In the autopsy photos we can see
the gauze strips in the top of the head and in the front of the head.
The wound outlined by Humes was plenty big enough for her to put her
fist in.
> difference is the removal of the brain after the x-rays were taken?
Not just the removal of the brain. The falling out of the loose skull
bone in the back of the head.
> And if I understand your hypothesis the missing piece of bone in the
> back of JFK's skull was put into place for the x-rays and removed
> before the mortician did the final preparation of JFK's remains without
No, I never said anything like that.
> the piece of bone that covered the hole in the back of the head? And
> that's why they had to use a piece of rubber that was custom cut from a
> piece of turnequet to fill the hole in the back of the head? IF what
Much bigger than a piece of tourniquet.
> you say is true Tony, then why didn't they just use the original
> missing piece of bone to cover the hole in the back of the head that
Who says a recover piece of bone was put back into the back of the head?
How would they attach it? Crazy glue? Weren't the bone pieces kept as
separate pieces of evidence?
Ben Holmes
Tony isn't willing to put an anatomical description to where this wound is, but
it's clear that he's not going to agree to what the eyewitnesses and autopsy
report stated.
Can you say "occipital", Tony?
>> difference is the removal of the brain after the x-rays were taken?
>
>Not just the removal of the brain. The falling out of the loose skull
>bone in the back of the head.
Completely missed the original point. How did the X-ray fail to capture the
hole *WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT AND EYEWITNESSES PLACE IT?*
>> And if I understand your hypothesis the missing piece of bone in the
>> back of JFK's skull was put into place for the x-rays and removed
>> before the mortician did the final preparation of JFK's remains without
>
>No, I never said anything like that.
Then why not address the problem here?
How did X-rays - taken *early* in the autopsy - fail to show what eyewitnesses
AND THE AUTOPSY REPORT assert about the wound?
>> the piece of bone that covered the hole in the back of the head? And
>> that's why they had to use a piece of rubber that was custom cut from a
>> piece of turnequet to fill the hole in the back of the head? IF what
>
>Much bigger than a piece of tourniquet.
>
>> you say is true Tony, then why didn't they just use the original
>> missing piece of bone to cover the hole in the back of the head that
>
>Who says a recover piece of bone was put back into the back of the head?
>How would they attach it? Crazy glue? Weren't the bone pieces kept as
>separate pieces of evidence?
Why doesn't the lateral X-ray show this missing bone, Tony? Missing where the
autopsy report and the eyewitnesses *said* it was missing?
>> Clint Hill saw and Diana Bowron saw in Dallas instead of the piece of
>> rubber that Robinson had to use to cover the hole in the back of JFK's
>> skull at Bethesda? Or had it gone missing again? Regards, Jim
Tony's squirming like any other LNT'er right now. And he has the exact same
problem - he simply cannot reconcile the evidence with his theory.
lazu...@webtv.net
the right ear-the occipital you know, the one that over 20 medical
professionals place in that distinct location...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Yes Ben and what about that big hole in the rear of JFK's head behind
>the right ear-the occipital you know, the one that over 20 medical
>professionals place in that distinct location...
Oh, the evidence for a large wound in the parietal-occipital is overwhelming.
That LNT'ers can simply admit that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's
head is amusing.
I must admit, I'd be embarrassed to have to try defending what LNT'ers are
required to defend everyday.
Or rather - snip and run everyday.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <4361-448...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
> says...
>> Yes Ben and what about that big hole in the rear of JFK's head behind
>> the right ear-the occipital you know, the one that over 20 medical
>> professionals place in that distinct location...
>
> Oh, the evidence for a large wound in the parietal-occipital is overwhelming.
> That LNT'ers can simply admit that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's
> head is amusing.
>
You mean "can't"?
The problem is that admitting something is turned into agreeing with
YOUR version.
Anthony Marsh
I could, but I'm not much of an artist. What is wrong with the Humes
drawing done for the ARRB?
> Can you say "occipital", Tony?
>
Extended into the occipital.
>
>>> difference is the removal of the brain after the x-rays were taken?
>> Not just the removal of the brain. The falling out of the loose skull
>> bone in the back of the head.
>
>
> Completely missed the original point. How did the X-ray fail to capture the
> hole *WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT AND EYEWITNESSES PLACE IT?*
>
The autopsy report did not place a large wound only in the occipital
bone. Don't base conclusions on eyewitnesses.
>
>
>>> And if I understand your hypothesis the missing piece of bone in the
>>> back of JFK's skull was put into place for the x-rays and removed
>>> before the mortician did the final preparation of JFK's remains without
>> No, I never said anything like that.
>
>
> Then why not address the problem here?
>
> How did X-rays - taken *early* in the autopsy - fail to show what eyewitnesses
> AND THE AUTOPSY REPORT assert about the wound?
>
Because the eyewitnesses were wrong. Eyewitness testimony is the most
unreliable form of evidence.
>
>>> the piece of bone that covered the hole in the back of the head? And
>>> that's why they had to use a piece of rubber that was custom cut from a
>>> piece of turnequet to fill the hole in the back of the head? IF what
>> Much bigger than a piece of tourniquet.
>>
>>> you say is true Tony, then why didn't they just use the original
>>> missing piece of bone to cover the hole in the back of the head that
>> Who says a recover piece of bone was put back into the back of the head?
>> How would they attach it? Crazy glue? Weren't the bone pieces kept as
>> separate pieces of evidence?
>
>
> Why doesn't the lateral X-ray show this missing bone, Tony? Missing where the
> autopsy report and the eyewitnesses *said* it was missing?
>
The lateral X-ray was taken before the bone fell out.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <4361-448...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
>> says...
>>> Yes Ben and what about that big hole in the rear of JFK's head behind
>>> the right ear-the occipital you know, the one that over 20 medical
>>> professionals place in that distinct location...
>>
>>Oh, the evidence for a large wound in the parietal-occipital is overwhelming.
>>That LNT'ers can simply admit that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's
>> head is amusing.
>>
>
>You mean "can't"?
Yep... I did indeed.
>The problem is that admitting something is turned into agreeing with
>YOUR version.
Funny, I can't seem to get you to specify in unambiguous anatomical terms
exactly where *YOU* believe this large wound was.
Rather cowardly of you, isn't it, Tony?
Can you say "occipital" Tony? Do you know where it's located on the head?
Ben Holmes
Is there *ANY* part of the occipital that is not located in the *BACK* of the
head, Tony?
>>>> difference is the removal of the brain after the x-rays were taken?
>>> Not just the removal of the brain. The falling out of the loose skull
>>> bone in the back of the head.
>>
>>
>> Completely missed the original point. How did the X-ray fail to capture the
>> hole *WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT AND EYEWITNESSES PLACE IT?*
>
>The autopsy report did not place a large wound only in the occipital
>bone. Don't base conclusions on eyewitnesses.
How stupid of you, Tony, to lie about what I just stated? You're a liar, Tony,
since it's clear that at no point did I try to assert that the large wound was
only in the occipital bone, or that the autopsy report so stated.
Knowing that you won't retract your lie, I'll simply move forward... now, Tony,
can you ANSWER THE QUESTION???
How did the X-ray fail to capture the hole *WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT AND
EYEWITNESSES PLACE IT?*
Show me a hole anywhere near the occipital bone in the lateral X-ray, Tony.
>>>> And if I understand your hypothesis the missing piece of bone in the
>>>> back of JFK's skull was put into place for the x-rays and removed
>>>> before the mortician did the final preparation of JFK's remains without
>>> No, I never said anything like that.
>>
>>
>> Then why not address the problem here?
>>
>> How did X-rays - taken *early* in the autopsy - fail to show what
>> eyewitnesses AND THE AUTOPSY REPORT assert about the wound?
>
>Because the eyewitnesses were wrong. Eyewitness testimony is the most
>unreliable form of evidence.
The infamous LNT'er cant. You must be EQUALLY willing to state that the autopsy
report, which reported the wound "extending" into the occipital, to be incorrect
as well.
Then DO IT, Tony. Tell all the lurkers here, right now, that you disbelieve the
autopsy report.
>>>> the piece of bone that covered the hole in the back of the head? And
>>>> that's why they had to use a piece of rubber that was custom cut from a
>>>> piece of turnequet to fill the hole in the back of the head? IF what
>>> Much bigger than a piece of tourniquet.
>>>
>>>> you say is true Tony, then why didn't they just use the original
>>>> missing piece of bone to cover the hole in the back of the head that
>>> Who says a recover piece of bone was put back into the back of the head?
>>> How would they attach it? Crazy glue? Weren't the bone pieces kept as
>>> separate pieces of evidence?
>>
>>
>> Why doesn't the lateral X-ray show this missing bone, Tony? Missing
>> where the autopsy report and the eyewitnesses *said* it was missing?
>
>The lateral X-ray was taken before the bone fell out.
How silly of you. All the eyewitnesses who saw JFK's wound at Parkland were
imagining things, Tony?
Oh yeah... that's right... "Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of
evidence." That's all LNT'ers can rely on. How sad...
Anthony Marsh
Silly question. The occipital is entirely in the back of the head.
>
>>>>> difference is the removal of the brain after the x-rays were taken?
>>>> Not just the removal of the brain. The falling out of the loose skull
>>>> bone in the back of the head.
>>>
>>> Completely missed the original point. How did the X-ray fail to capture the
>>> hole *WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT AND EYEWITNESSES PLACE IT?*
>> The autopsy report did not place a large wound only in the occipital
>> bone. Don't base conclusions on eyewitnesses.
>
>
> How stupid of you, Tony, to lie about what I just stated? You're a liar, Tony,
> since it's clear that at no point did I try to assert that the large wound was
> only in the occipital bone, or that the autopsy report so stated.
>
> Knowing that you won't retract your lie, I'll simply move forward... now, Tony,
> can you ANSWER THE QUESTION???
>
> How did the X-ray fail to capture the hole *WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT AND
> EYEWITNESSES PLACE IT?*
>
Forget the eyewitnesses. They were wrong. The X-rays are consistent with
the autopsy report.
> Show me a hole anywhere near the occipital bone in the lateral X-ray, Tony.
>
Fractures.
>
>>>>> And if I understand your hypothesis the missing piece of bone in the
>>>>> back of JFK's skull was put into place for the x-rays and removed
>>>>> before the mortician did the final preparation of JFK's remains without
>>>> No, I never said anything like that.
>>>
>>> Then why not address the problem here?
>>>
>>> How did X-rays - taken *early* in the autopsy - fail to show what
>>> eyewitnesses AND THE AUTOPSY REPORT assert about the wound?
>> Because the eyewitnesses were wrong. Eyewitness testimony is the most
>> unreliable form of evidence.
>
>
> The infamous LNT'er cant. You must be EQUALLY willing to state that the autopsy
> report, which reported the wound "extending" into the occipital, to be incorrect
> as well.
>
> Then DO IT, Tony. Tell all the lurkers here, right now, that you disbelieve the
> autopsy report.
>
Of course I do not believe everything in the autopsy report.
>
>
>>>>> the piece of bone that covered the hole in the back of the head? And
>>>>> that's why they had to use a piece of rubber that was custom cut from a
>>>>> piece of turnequet to fill the hole in the back of the head? IF what
>>>> Much bigger than a piece of tourniquet.
>>>>
>>>>> you say is true Tony, then why didn't they just use the original
>>>>> missing piece of bone to cover the hole in the back of the head that
>>>> Who says a recover piece of bone was put back into the back of the head?
>>>> How would they attach it? Crazy glue? Weren't the bone pieces kept as
>>>> separate pieces of evidence?
>>>
>>> Why doesn't the lateral X-ray show this missing bone, Tony? Missing
>>> where the autopsy report and the eyewitnesses *said* it was missing?
>> The lateral X-ray was taken before the bone fell out.
>
>
> How silly of you. All the eyewitnesses who saw JFK's wound at Parkland were
> imagining things, Tony?
>
Yes.