Another typically "LN" post from Cap'n beb's bugaboo Tony Marsh

[BT George]

beb has ranted (again) recently that Marsh is actually an LN, not a CT. So for your viewing pleasure, here is a post from *today*. Just ask yourself, do LN's believe in a frontal shot to JFK, or that someone else besides Oswald might have pulled the trigger? And if Tony is just pretending, does he really get paid to pretend for *decades*?

Nope. Like him or not CT's have to accept him in all his glory as a badge of "honor"; not us LN's. :-)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/PBTCs6nfQgA/8Lgj0pJvAAAJ



On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 8:55:31 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever

Well, thanks for reminding us of that. No one else was smart enough to
figure that out? So, instead of Thanksgiving home coming shows and
Charlie Brown they are going to show JFK assassination programs? Remind
me tomorrow to set my DVR.

> surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
> subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
> though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> day.
>
> The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of

Not that alone. Also the destruction of the evidence.

> course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
>

That's what you guys said about Watergate and about Trump.

> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole

Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
the building? The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
the night before.

> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within

Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.

> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals

Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.

> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>
> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which

How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?

> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving

How many years can a cover-up last?

> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime

You need to separate the coverup from the crime. The actors may not be
the same. The motives might not be the same.
- show quoted text -

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Bump for beb.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:42:32 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 11:46:10 AM UTC-6, BT George wrote:

...

>Bump for beb.

Snipped without reading... All the moron had to do was define a
term... thus proving that his derogatory comment was a lie.

[19e...@mail.com]

Marsh is a Lone Nutter, not because he espouses their wacky theories, but because he serves their purposes. His two big CT points seem to be the acoustic evidence and the grassy knoll shooter. The acoustic evidence, as he interprets it, has been thoroughly discredited. No serious person who studies the evidence could possibly believe it, so for Marsh as the resident "CTer" to propagate this theory discredits him to serious people, and perhaps misleads some less serious people, leading them to a dead end. And the grassy knoll shooter is the old chestnut of the Lone Nutters. There was nobody to shoot from behind the fence, so the Nutters are happy to have people looking for shooters there. The real frontal shooter was on the overpass, and of course Marsh viciously denies that. He is an overpass gatekeeper. Another of his ploys is to say that all witnesses are unreliable, at least when he wants them to be. Some of the good evidence for conspiracy is in the witness testimony, so he doesn't want you to rely on that, unless it supports some lie he's telling. And, he is also a staunch supporter of the authenticity of all of the photography, naturally, because the photography has been altered. So, Marsh helps the Nutters by defending their faked evidence. He pretends to be a CT, but he serves the LN's.

[BT George]

Yes, beb does lie a lot folks. :-)

[BT George]

Marsh was a CT from the old Josiah Thompson school. They were a tinge crazy, but at *least* they could recognize the legitimacy of the Zapruder film, and based some of their theories on it. The most recent crop of CT's---realizing the Z film and other forms of evidence have not really been their friend---have opted for a *ton* of crazy. Going with the "everything" was faked, except the witnesses (that we like) approach. :-)

[19e...@mail.com]

You're a fake Nutter, but a real shitbag.

[BT George]

The first statement is definitely untrue---but then again you have not shown any propensity to analyze data and come to sane conclusions. For the second, I will leave it to others whose opinion I give a rip about to assess who around here is more accurately described that way.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The first statement is definitely untrue---but then again you have not shown any propensity to analyze data

By "data", PT Barnum is not referring to any of the science in the case.

>
> and come to sane conclusions.

Meaning, the conclusions he prefers.

>
> For the second, I will leave it to others whose opinion I give a rip about to assess who around here is more accurately described that way.

Did that decades ago, when I was on the fence and listening to both sides of the argument.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The first statement is definitely untrue---but then again you have not shown any propensity to analyze data
>
> By "data", PT Barnum is not referring to any of the science in the case.
>

By "science" Boris is not referring to anything that Law Enforcement or the Applied Sciences delve in daily in regards to criminal investigations and ballistics concepts.

> >
> > and come to sane conclusions.
>
> Meaning, the conclusions he prefers.
>

As indeed I *do* prefer conclusions backed by the available *hard* evidence and the actions of the suspect himself.

> >
> > For the second, I will leave it to others whose opinion I give a rip about to assess who around here is more accurately described that way.
>
> Did that decades ago, when I was on the fence and listening to both sides of the argument.

Humpty Dumpty fell off the wrong side of that fence.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The first statement is definitely untrue---but then again you have not shown any propensity to analyze data
> >
> > By "data", PT Barnum is not referring to any of the science in the case.
> >
>
> By "science" Boris is not referring to anything that Law Enforcement or the Applied Sciences delve in daily in regards to criminal investigations and ballistics concepts.

Then you can easily cite any of the applied science experts in this case whose testimony you fully endorse from beginning to end, and also explain away the "ballistic concept" of the lead snowstorm x-ray.

> >
>
> As indeed I *do* prefer conclusions backed by the available *hard* evidence and the actions of the suspect himself.

Like a weapon with a dubious money order and ZERO paraphernalia found at his residence, all findings which also somehow prove he not only acted, but did so alone?

>
> Humpty Dumpty fell off the wrong side of that fence.

Mockery in lieu of defending your faith with all that so-called "hard" evidence will score you HUGE points with the loser demographic, but not much else.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:51:54 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The first statement is definitely untrue---but then again you have not shown any propensity to analyze data
> > >
> > > By "data", PT Barnum is not referring to any of the science in the case.
> > >
> >
> > By "science" Boris is not referring to anything that Law Enforcement or the Applied Sciences delve in daily in regards to criminal investigations and ballistics concepts.
>
> Then you can easily cite any of the applied science experts in this case whose testimony you fully endorse from beginning to end, and also explain away the "ballistic concept" of the lead snowstorm x-ray.
>

Boris is sounding more like beb every day with his concern about accepting a given expert word for word. But perhaps it would be better if Boris told me which pieces of hard evidence he thinks I need to believe a given expert 100% for in order to believe it points to Oswald.

Also, since not everyone speaks Conspiracyees, it would be helpful if he specified in exactly which X-ray his furtive imagination thinks he sees a lead snowstorm in.

>
> > >
> >
> > As indeed I *do* prefer conclusions backed by the available *hard* evidence and the actions of the suspect himself.
>
> Like a weapon with a dubious money order and ZERO paraphernalia found at his residence, all findings which also somehow prove he not only acted, but did so alone?
>

Make up your mind. Do you believe he was a shooter or not? If he was a shooter then the argument for a conspiracy behind our with him comes into play. Got *any* hard evidence for that?

>
> >
> > Humpty Dumpty fell off the wrong side of that fence.
>
> Mockery in lieu of defending your faith with all that so-called "hard" evidence will score you HUGE points with the loser demographic, but not much else.

Mockery is the only appropriate response when that fall resulted in evident derangement and confusion of the part of the resident beanie wearer. :-)

[19e...@mail.com]

If you don't care about my opinion, then maybe you should ignore me and get back raping nuns and murdering presidents you don't like, shitbag.

[Jason Burke]

Oooh. Turn me on, baby!

[BT George]

Up till now I *have* ignored you. That was clearly a good idea for a variety of reasons. So lurkers from here on out I will just "let him rant that men may know him mad." (Ramses - The Ten Commandments) :-)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Up till now I *have* ignored you. That was clearly a good idea for a variety of reasons.

The main reason being just about everyone in this forum has effortlessly schooled you, and you're trying to preserve what little scraps of dignity you think you have left.

[19e...@mail.com]

Thank you

[BT George]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 12:46:33 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Up till now I *have* ignored you. That was clearly a good idea for a variety of reasons.
>
> The main reason being just about everyone in this forum has effortlessly schooled you, and you're trying to preserve what little scraps of dignity you think you have left.

You haven't even answered the last questions I put to you. So how's that schooling working out for ya'?

[BT George]

YWC!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You haven't even answered the last questions I put to you. So how's that schooling working out for ya'?

Which question? The one about the lead snowstorm? Oh, forgive me for not answering your beck and call to deaf ears. Sure, I'm happy to C&P some information you'll mock but not read.....


On Frangible Bullets in JFK Assassination

“I received two replies, one from Dr. Jimmy W. Green and the other from Dr. Eric Berg, both of whom, as mentioned, are medical examiners. Dr. Green said that “almost all” FMJ bullets fired from medium-to-high-velocity rifles “do not fragment with numerous pieces.” He cited one exception, and that was a .223 bullet traveling at a high velocity, and he noted that “hunting ammunition” will produce a “lead snowstorm.” Of course, the 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition that Oswald allegedly used is much different than hunting ammunition. With regard to the shearing scenario, Dr. Green said “it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone.” He added he would be “surprised” that an FMJ missile would behave in this manner. I quote Dr. Green’s reply:

1. Almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces as you have described. Having said that, it is known that the .223 bullet as used in an M-16 rifle will produce multiple fragmentation even though it is an FMJ bullet. This is due to its high velocity (about 3200 fps) and inherent instability when it enters the body. These combined effects tear open the jacket and expose the lead core. Most centerfire rifle bullets from hunting ammunition will cause a “lead snowstorm” effect with numerous small metallic fragments breaking off the lead core as the bullet passes thru the body. I don’t see why this couldn’t happen with the skull and brain as well as the trunk.

2. In answer to your second question, I think that it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone. But it could potentially be possible for a small piece of bullet to break off as it enters the skull depending on several factors, such as caliber, i.e., .223 and intermediary targets. This effect may produce a “keyhole” entrance wound if the trajectory is somewhat tangential to the skull, part of the bullet would be sheared off and exit or remain in the tissue while the other part enters the cranial cavity. This generally only happens with exposed lead core bullets though and with lower velocity. So my first thought is that the bullet type would not be FMJ to cause this effect and I would be surprised that one would do this unless there were confounding factors as noted above.

Considerations should include whether or not there were any intermediary targets prior to entering the body or head and whether or not the actual bullets were FMJ or some other construction. (E-mail to author, 3/19/2002)

Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull. With regard to the question about an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment on the outer table of the skull, he said, “No, not with a full metal jacket.” I quote Dr. Berg’s reply:

QUESTION #1: No. “In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a ‘lead snowstorm’. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug.” (Page 318)

QUESTION #2: No, not with a full metal jacket.

REFERENCE: VJM DiMaio, Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999. ISBN 0-8493-8163-0. (E-mail to author, 3/19/2002)

Dr. Michael Kurtz has done considerable research on the wound ballistics aspects of the case. Dr. Kurtz argues that the skull fracturing and bullet fragmentation visible on the autopsy x-rays indicate high-velocity ammunition struck the president’s skull, not low-velocity or medium-velocity ammunition as supposed by the single-assassin theory:

The x-rays of the skull reveal massive multiple fractures of the skull on both the right and left sides. There is extensive fragmentation of the bone, and several pieces of the skull are missing. This type of damage is not produced by ammunition like that allegedly used by Oswald. Copper-jacketed bullet commonly penetrate straight through objects, leaving only small tracks and causing little in the way of bone fractures. Wounds ballistics tests performed for the commission confirmed this. Bullets from Oswald’s rifle, from a .257 Roberts soft-point hunting rifle, and from a United States Army M-14 rifle were fired into blocks of gelatin covered with masonite. The Mannlicher-Carcano bullet went straight through the gelatin, leaving a tiny track and causing little damage to the substance. The soft-point hunting bullet expanded rapidly upon entering and considerably more damage. The M-14 bullet caused more destruction than the others. . . .

The skull x-rays also depicted extensive bullet fragmentation within the skull. This type of fragmentation is not typical of full-jacketed military ammunition. That ammunition was specifically designed to remain intact when passing through a body. Lead, or hollow-point, ammunition is the type that causes fragmentation. . . .

World War II films of men being shot in the head by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles reveal absolutely no massive explosion of brain tissue and also show quite graphically that the men invariably fell in the same direction as the trajectory of the bullets that struck them. Autopsy photographs and x-rays of some of the victims of Mannlicher-Carcano-inflicted head wounds also showed no bullet fragmentation, no serious disruption of brain tissue, and very small exit wounds. (Crime of the Century, pp. 91, 104)

The x-rays of two of the skulls used in the Warren Commission’s wound ballistics tests pose another problem for the lone-gunman theory. The fragmentation seen on these x-rays differs markedly from the fragmentation seen on the autopsy x-rays, in location, nature, and number. Howard Roffman explains:

These X rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald’s rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the X rays: “The whole head looked like a little mass of stars.” The fragmentation depicted on these test X rays obviously differs from that described in the president’s head. The upper X ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic, suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy. (Photo: National Archives) (Presumed Guilty, 1976, photo pages 8 and 9, chapter 5)

Another wound ballistics problem for the lone-gunman theory is that the number of known and unknown fragments from the head shot appears to add up to much more than one Carcano missile, which means more than one bullet struck Kennedy in the head. Dr. Kurtz explains:

The known fragments both inside and outside the head total more than two-thirds of an intact Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. This does not account for the fact that a sizable number of fragments exploded completely out of the head and were propelled out of the limousine on to the street. . . . The Ramsey Clark panel states specifically that most of the bullet that struck the president “emerged from the head.” Dr. Lattimer estimated that 95 grains of the bullet which struck the head “apparently went completely over the windshield to strike the street further along.” His calculation is based on the fact that 65 grains of the bullet were recovered. This calculation, however, is based entirely upon the total weight of the limousine fragments. He does not include the weight of the two fragments recovered from the head nor those remaining in the head.

Dr. Lattimer estimated that 70 percent of the right half of the brain as well as 50 percent of the right half of the skull was missing. Over thirty-five fragments, many over 1 mm. in diameter, two over 6 mm., remained in that portion of the brain and skull which did not explode out of the head. It is not unreasonable to postulate that at least as many fragments must have been blown out of the head as remained in it.

Wounds ballistics tests conducted for the Warren Commission by Dr. Alfred Olivier confirmed this. A bullet from Oswald’s rifle fired into a test skull fragmented extensively, ejecting over thirty fragments outside the skull. Two very large fragments composing approximately 70 percent of the test bullet were found outside the skull. Twenty-nine smaller fragments, some as large as 6 mm. in diameter, were also discovered outside the test skull. Collectively, these fragments total about 95 percent of the total size of the test bullet. Dr. Lattimer also performed ballistics tests that verified the fact that most of the intact size and weight of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets were blown out of the skulls.

The results of these tests indicate that the total number of known and unknown fragments add up to substantially more than one of Oswald’s bullets. The bullet fragments remaining in the brain plus those in the skull plus those removed from the brain plus those the limousine fragments plus those never recovered strongly suggest that more than one bullet struck President Kennedy in the head. (Crime of the Century, pp. 97-98, emphasis added)

As mentioned, the extensive skull fracturing and bullet fragmentation visible on the autopsy skull x-rays indicate the ammunition that struck the president’s head was not the same kind of ammunition that Oswald allegedly used. Even the Clark Panel concluded the missile that struck the back of the president’s head was a high-velocity bullet. Said the panel,

These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . . (Clark Panel Report, “Examination of Photographs of Head,” reproduced in Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 316, emphasis added)

However, Oswald used low-to-medium-velocity ammunition. FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier explained to the commission that the Carcano rifle (the alleged murder weapon) was a low-velocity weapon:

Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?

Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
. . . . .
Dr. Vincent DiMaio’s book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be “few”:

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm”. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318,

[BT George]

Yet DiMaio clearly *agrees* with the cause of the fatal head shot in the Kennedy case:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/05/20/2-jfk-autopsy-pathologists-defend-conclusion-on-fatal-bullet/83e63cf2-ef0b-4dbe-9b27-8da7bbd3fedb/?utm_term=.c858811cc0d6

Note particularly these passages from the link:

First:

"The central finding was that the fatal damage to the president's skull could only have been done by a bullet entering the back of the head and exiting near the right temple. In particular, they said the head shot produced a large beveled wound on the inside of the president's skull when it entered, and another beveled wound on the outside of the skull when it exited.

"This is always the pattern of a through-and-through wound of the cranium. . . . This is a law of physics and it is foolproof -- absolutely, unequivocally, and without question," Humes is quoted as saying in the article.

An internationally known forensic pathologist and expert on gunshot wounds yesterday confirmed that such a pattern of injury clearly establishes the trajectory of a bullet.

"If you have a gunshot wound of bone and it is punched out on one surface and beveled out on the opposite surface, then the bullet entered on the punched-out surface, and the beveled surface is the exit," said Vincent J. M. Di Maio, chief medical examiner for Bexar County, Tex., which includes San Antonio.


He said that once in a great while, there is beveling on both surfaces of a bone, and in such cases trajectory is hard to establish. But, he said, "Based on these statements {made to JAMA}, there is absolutely no doubt that the bullet came from the rear and exited from the front."

The direction of the bullet was further supported, Humes asserted, by X-rays that "disclosed fine, dust-like metallic fragments from back to front, where the bullet traversed the head before creating an explosive exit wound."

Second:

"Harold Weisberg, author of "Post Mortem" and other books on the JFK assassination, said there was no way of telling whether the metallic fragments shown in the X-rays traveled "from back to front or front to back" and voiced doubt that they would have been left by a full-jacketed military bullet such as those fired from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. In addition, he said, the 40 fragments were "all clustered in the front of the head in a very short path."

Di Maio, however, said it would be natural for fragments to be clustered around the exit point "because the bullet is not traveling head-on, but has been destabilized and possibly deformed" by then."


And as a final response, regarding the paradoxical performance of the *particular* FMJ ammo. Oswald used (incredibly stable in some contexts, yet will shatter in others), go to the 26 minute mark of the middle video excerpt from JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet linked below and watch the next few minutes. The type of things that do and don't make this ammunition fail will be obvious if you care what the actual *evidence* shows:


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html#Videos

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I note how quick-draw you are with the strawman, trying to prove the direction of lead fragments whilst ignoring the fact there should not be any lead fragments at all, per Frazier's testimony. But that's okay, we've already established believers hate Frazier, and your rebuttal also required you to ignore ballistic behavior in lieu of some beveling which, by the way, is mysteriously not present in the BOH photograph. You behaved accordingly! :-)

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:59:19 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

The direction of the lead fragments seen in the JFK X-ray is
**EASILY** determined by simple physics.

All a believer has to do is state where the larger fragments are
located... toward the front of JFK's head, or toward the read of his
head...

But I can't find a **SINGLE** believer willing to answer that simple
question.

And the reason is quite obvious... the moment they admit where the
larger fragments are seen - they've strangled themselves with facts,
unless they're willing to deny simple physics.

Here, for example: http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/LarryNARA.html

Where are the larger fragments? Toward the front of the head, or the
rear?

[BT George]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:59:20 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> I note how quick-draw you are with the strawman, trying to prove the direction of lead fragments whilst ignoring the fact there should not be any lead fragments at all, per Frazier's testimony. But that's okay, we've already established believers hate Frazier, and your rebuttal also required you to ignore ballistic behavior in lieu of some beveling which, by the way, is mysteriously not present in the BOH photograph. You behaved accordingly! :-)

I see how quickly you abandon DiMaio as an expert when he clearly disagrees with what you want to believe. I also see that your *ignored* that my video link showed exactly what sort of things can and cannot make a Carcano bullet fail.

[BT George]

LOL! Holmes links to an article that give *many* reasons to establish that the entry wound was in the back! (And interestingly to me, that the original autopsists were right in placing it lower than the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA FPP's did.) And the picture is not friend to beb either folks.

Not sure what physics the Cap'n thinks make his beliefs tenable, but if the wound is in the back I would *expect* the larger fragments, if anything, to be towards the front. This is precisely what the linked to picture shows, unless beb thinks the EOP is near the front of the head.

Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones. I mean what is more likely to penetrate further into an object, tiny flecks, easily disbursed and slowed by the resistance it encounters, or the larger ones that are (comparatively speaking) like trying to stop a train in motion?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I didn't dismiss DiMaio at all. That there were shots from behind is irrefutable, which is why you came at me with a strawman right out of the gate. And your reference video had nothing about bullets at the 26-min mark, or the minute before and after it for that matter, but if it's more of Dale Myers' bullshit we can certainly understand why you'd preference that over ballistics expertise.

>
> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.

Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you, since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
>> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
>> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
>> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
>
> Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
> since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
> that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.

Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims... Now
that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.

Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.

I've predicted it!

Let the cowardice begin...

(Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)

[BT George]

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn't dismiss DiMaio at all. That there were shots from behind is irrefutable, which is why you came at me with a strawman right out of the gate. And your reference video had nothing about bullets at the 26-min mark, or the minute before and after it for that matter, but if it's more of Dale Myers' bullshit we can certainly understand why you'd preference that over ballistics expertise.
>

Sorry, the link has changed since I last posted it. Here is is again:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html#Videos

Go to the bottom video:

"JFK:
BEYOND THE
MAGIC BULLET"
(THE COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY):

Then look at the 54 through 60 minute mark. You should see a demonstration of shooting through a pine log and into a thick bone in ballistic gelatin.

This intent is to show the seemingly paradoxical performance of WCC 6.5 M/M Carcano ammunition when it meets different forms of resistance.

> >
> > Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
>
> Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you, since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.

You need to elaborate on what supposedly invalidates my "faith" that is shared by DiMaio's and other ballistics experts like Larry Sturdivan. As far as taking anything conclusive about the size of the fragments in the Lateral and their relative locations, you would be advised to consider the report of Dr. Joe Davis, a recognized expert in Radiology. He saw that image (better quality than copies of copies) plus others not available in the public domain. His notes on the fragments mention some large fragments towards the front, but also indicate that it was impossible to say with *certainty* if all the fragments were actually in the skull or outside it in the scalp.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0116b.htm

[Bud]

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
> >> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
> >> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
> >> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
> >
> > Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
> > since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
> > that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.
>
> Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims...

Victim, lurkers? If retards want to preach in their own private echo chamber let them.

> Now
> that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
> of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
> fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.

I`ve challenged beb many times to make an argument about this and support it, lurkers. So far, nada.

> Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
> I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
>
> I've predicted it!
>
> Let the cowardice begin...
>
> (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
> get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
> in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)

Tiresome shifting of the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards make their own arguments?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 1:30:02 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
> > >> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
> > >> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
> > >> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
> > >
> > > Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
> > > since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
> > > that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.
> >
> > Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims...
>
> Victim, lurkers? If retards want to preach in their own private echo chamber let them.

it's simple Bud old chap, grow a pair! Drop the .John allegiance, take a walk on the wild side...

> > Noa

> > that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
> > of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
> > fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.
>
> I`ve challenged beb many times to make an argument about this and support it, lurkers. So far, nada.

what's to challenge? Have you seen the x-rays? Need a link?

> > Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
> > I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
> >
> > I've predicted it!
> >
> > Let the cowardice begin...
> >
> > (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
> > get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
> > in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)
>
> Tiresome shifting of the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards make their own arguments?

bull shit, English your 2nd or 3r language?

[Jason Burke]

"3r", fucktard?

Here's a hint, druggie. When you're trying to insult someone based on,
uh, language, make sure you don't make such a stupid mistake.

Okay, shit-for-brains? Now go fantasize about your mama's titties again.

[Bud]

<snicker> Healey stumbles in, slurs some words and stumbles out.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

don't go getting a 'woodie', perv. lmao

[healyd...@gmail.com]

I know ya been lying for so long we're gonna help you change your modus operandi. We're gonna help you get it all in CAPS.... love to watch you Zap film alteration whack jobs trip all over your dicks...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:30:01 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
>> >> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
>> >> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
>> >> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
>> >
>> > Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
>> > since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
>> > that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.
>>
>> Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims...
>
> Victim, lurkers? If retards want to preach in their own private
> echo chamber let them.

Poor description.

People who can't coherently make their case, and lie constantly aren't
worth the time.

Puddy comes quite close to the cutoff for a killfilter... (and has in
the past)

>> Now
>> that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
>> of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
>> fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.
>
> I`ve challenged beb many times to make an argument about this and
> support it, lurkers. So far, nada.

The first thing to do is to acknowledge the FACTS... then you can face
the conclusions that can be made based on those facts.

The *FACT* that I can't get a single believer to publicly acknowledge
a simple fact shows that you know what the argument is.

And can't face it.

>> Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
>> I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
>>
>> I've predicted it!
>>
>> Let the cowardice begin...
>>
>> (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
>> get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
>> in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)
>

> I'm a retard.

And one who's too much a coward to state what the facts are.

[BT George]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:30:01 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
> >> >> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
> >> >> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
> >> >> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
> >> >
> >> > Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
> >> > since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
> >> > that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.
> >>
> >> Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims...
> >
> > Victim, lurkers? If retards want to preach in their own private
> > echo chamber let them.
>
>
> Poor description.
>
> People who can't coherently make their case, and lie constantly aren't
> worth the time.
>
> Puddy comes quite close to the cutoff for a killfilter... (and has in
> the past)
>

...Except that Cap'n would get too "wonwy" if he killfiltered Bud and Chuck too. Because then he would would have no way left for interaction, but indirectly through the "Boris" channel. Already it *kills* him that he cannot respond *directly* to me without dropping all ruse of ignorance.

>
> >> Now
> >> that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
> >> of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
> >> fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.
> >
> > I`ve challenged beb many times to make an argument about this and
> > support it, lurkers. So far, nada.
>
>
> The first thing to do is to acknowledge the FACTS... then you can face
> the conclusions that can be made based on those facts.
>
> The *FACT* that I can't get a single believer to publicly acknowledge
> a simple fact shows that you know what the argument is.
>
> And can't face it.
>
>
> >> Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
> >> I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
> >>
> >> I've predicted it!
> >>
> >> Let the cowardice begin...
> >>
> >> (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
> >> get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
> >> in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)
> >
> > I'm a retard.
>
> And one who's too much a coward to state what the facts are.

Indeed Lurkers, beb is too much of a coward to even pronounce the word "facts" still less correctly state them.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:14:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:30:01 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
> >> >> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
> >> >> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
> >> >> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
> >> >
> >> > Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
> >> > since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
> >> > that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.
> >>
> >> Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims...
> >
> > Victim, lurkers? If retards want to preach in their own private
> > echo chamber let them.
>
>
> Poor description.
>
> People who can't coherently make their case, and lie constantly aren't
> worth the time.

Exactly the reason I curtailed how much time I waste responding to this dishonest retard, lurkers.

> Puddy comes quite close to the cutoff for a killfilter... (and has in
> the past)

Like I care what retards do, lurkers.

> >> Now
> >> that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
> >> of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
> >> fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.
> >
> > I`ve challenged beb many times to make an argument about this and
> > support it, lurkers. So far, nada.
>
>
> The first thing to do is to acknowledge the FACTS...

I have to do no such thing, lurkers. I merely need to point out that no argument has been made.

> then you can face
> the conclusions that can be made based on those facts.

> The *FACT* that I can't get a single believer to publicly acknowledge
> a simple fact shows that you know what the argument is.

The process is that a person puts his ideas, and the support for those ideas on the table for consideration. That beb can`t do this should tell lurkers all they need to know.

> And can't face it.
>
>
> >> Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
> >> I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
> >>
> >> I've predicted it!
> >>
> >> Let the cowardice begin...
> >>
> >> (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
> >> get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
> >> in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)
> >
> > I'm a retard.
>
> And one who's too much a coward to state what the facts are.

These retards can`t make arguments, lurkers. They blame others for their shortcomings.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:58:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:14:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:30:01 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:09:28 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Why do I say this? Because as the failed bullet mass passed
>> >> >> through it began to spread out with the fragments losing momentum
>> >> >> along the way. I would think the larger ones, having more mass in
>> >> >> motion, would get further before stopping than the smaller ones.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes they would, and it's frankly surprising to hear this from you,
>> >> > since the above debunks your faith. Likely you're not even aware of
>> >> > that, which is why you foolishly admitted it.
>> >>
>> >> Looks like you're responding to one of my killfilter victims...
>> >
>> > Victim, lurkers? If retards want to preach in their own private
>> > echo chamber let them.
>>
>>
>> Poor description.
>>
>> People who can't coherently make their case, and lie constantly aren't
>> worth the time.
>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.

>
>> Puddy comes quite close to the cutoff for a killfilter... (and has in
>> the past)
>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.

>
>> >> Now
>> >> that this moron is on record with an accurate and correct description
>> >> of physics... you'll **NEVER** get him to post where the larger
>> >> fragments in the X-ray of JFK are located.
>> >
>> > I`ve challenged beb many times to make an argument about this and
>> > support it, lurkers. So far, nada.
>>
>>
>> The first thing to do is to acknowledge the FACTS...
>
> I have to do no such thing, lurkers. I merely need to point out
> that no argument has been made.

No debate is possible when you refuse to even acknowledge the known
facts.

>> then you can face
>> the conclusions that can be made based on those facts.
>
>> The *FACT* that I can't get a single believer to publicly acknowledge
>> a simple fact shows that you know what the argument is.
>
> The process is that a person puts his ideas, and the support for
> those ideas on the table for consideration. That beb can`t do this
> should tell lurkers all they need to know.

Actually, the process is for both sides to acknowledge the facts,
*THEN* point out their explanation for those facts.

>> And can't face it.
>>
>>
>> >> Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
>> >> I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
>> >>
>> >> I've predicted it!
>> >>
>> >> Let the cowardice begin...
>> >>
>> >> (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
>> >> get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
>> >> in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)
>> >
>> > I'm a retard.
>>
>> And one who's too much a coward to state what the facts are.
>

> I'm a retard blaming others for my shortcomings.

[Bud]

I was acknowledging the known facts, lurkers, that beb is retarded.

> >> then you can face
> >> the conclusions that can be made based on those facts.
> >
> >> The *FACT* that I can't get a single believer to publicly acknowledge
> >> a simple fact shows that you know what the argument is.
> >
> > The process is that a person puts his ideas, and the support for
> > those ideas on the table for consideration. That beb can`t do this
> > should tell lurkers all they need to know.
>
>
> Actually, the process is for both sides to acknowledge the facts,
> *THEN* point out their explanation for those facts.

This is wrong, lurkers. This is a conspiracy forum. They have to put a case on the table for consideration.

>
>
> >> And can't face it.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Indeed, I would hazard the guess that this moron actually thought that
> >> >> I'd linked to JFK's X-ray.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've predicted it!
> >> >>
> >> >> Let the cowardice begin...
> >> >>
> >> >> (Actually, let the cowardice *continue*, as I've never been able to
> >> >> get a believer to publicly state where the larger fragments are found
> >> >> in JFK's X-ray... I predict that this refusal will continue...)
> >> >
> >> > I'm a retard.
> >>
> >> And one who's too much a coward to state what the facts are.
> >
> > I'm a retard blaming others for my shortcomings.

beb proves I own him every time he changes my words, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:56:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I was acknowledging the known facts ..


And yet, here we are... with no known or citable quote stating where
the largest fragments are seen in the side X-ray of JFK's head from
any believer.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Bud]

With beb cutting and running from everything I write. He trembles at my words, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:53:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

What words?

Still no known or citable quote stating where the largest fragments
are seen in the side X-ray of JFK's head.

Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?

[Bud]

The words I wrote that beb was forced to change because he was afraid of them, of course, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:34:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium...

> that beb was forced to change because he was
> afraid of them, of course, lurkers.

Why are you running from my posts, Puddles?

Why can't you answer the simple question about where the largest
fragments are seen?

>> Still no known or citable quote stating where the largest fragments
>> are seen in the side X-ray of JFK's head.
>>
>> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?

No response...

And no answer to the question of where the largest fragments can be
seen in the side X-ray.

Puddy knows quite well where they are, but he also knows that it's
solid scientific evidence of a shot from the front... so he dare not
publicly admit what anyone can see for themselves.

>> >> with no known or citable quote stating where
>> >> the largest fragments are seen in the side X-ray of JFK's head from
>> >> any believer.
>> >>
>> >> Run coward... RUN!!!

Puddles took my advice.