Following the Science: The Bevelling Evidence / Proof of a Shot From the Front

[Gil Jesus]

Dr. Humes' final autopsy report stated that "in the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits bevelling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." ( 16 H 981 )

One autopsy photograph proves this was not so.

Unlike an exit wound in flesh, which leaves a ragged or jagged edge to the wound, an exit wound in the skull blasts out of the bone leaving a "bevel" at the point of exit.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/skin_bone-1024x494.jpg

A bevel on the inside table of the skull indicates a wound of entry while a bevel on the outside of the skull indicates a wound of exit.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/bevelling.jpg

Below is a typical gunshot wound to the skull showing the entrance wound ( A ) on the outside of the skull and the bevelling on the inside of the skull ( B ) as the bullet exited the bone.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/gunshot-entrance-wound.png

Humes' statement that the bevelling was seen "when viewing from the inner aspect of the skull" indicates that the wound was a wound of entry. ( CE 387, pg. 4 )

But autopsy photo BE7 - HI, shows a bevelling of the wound on the OUTSIDE of the skull on the perimeter of the large exit wound.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg

This bevelling indicates that a bullet EXITED at the large head wound. The autopsy photo does not support the autopsy report.

The autopsy report indicates that Humes knew how to interpret the bevelling information. Three fragments which were blown off the skull in Dealey Plaza found their way to Bethesda and were included in the autopsy report. The largest of these had a bevelling on the outside which Humes correctly identified as an exit wound. ( 16 H 981 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WH_Vol16_981-autopsy-report-4-647x1024.jpg

If he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large fragment indicated a wound of exit, he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large wound in the back of the skull indicated an exit wound as well.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fig_h3_sml.jpg

In other words, Dr. Humes changed the exit wound he saw to an entrance wound. He deliberately lied about the head wound he saw. With Oswald positioned behind the motorcade, they had to have the official record show all shots were fired from behind.

This is the reason why he and the Secret Service pressured the Dallas doctors, specifically Dr. Malcolm Perry, to back off his statement that the throat wound was an entry wound.

It's the reason why Humes lied to Rydberg about the autopsy photos and x-rays being unavailable and why he preferred dictating a description of the wounds. Rydberg could not be allowed to see the evidence that proved Humes' autopsy report was a lie.

And it's also the real reason why Humes burned his original autopsy notes after Lee Harvey Oswald was dead. The medical people involved in the autopsy were sworn to secrecy under penalty of court-martial.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MD195-letter-of-silence-Custer.png

All of these actions when combined could only serve one sinister purpose: to hide the fact that the shot that hit the President in the throat and at least one that hit him in the head came from the front.

[donald willis]

Eager to see the LN response to this!

[Charles Schuyler]

So how many shots were fired, and from where? And using the Z film frames for numerical reference points, at approximately what Z film frame numbers do your shots correspond with? Which shots caused what wounds?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Well, that's nice. But as I understand it, the only photo here said to be a JFK autopsy photo is BE7 HI. I don't recognize it. Where can it be seen to be a JFK autopsy photo? That is, where is the source from which you got it?

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 6:14:33 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

BE7 is a view of JFK's shattered skull with the frontal area in the foreground and the occiput in the background. Since you can clearly see the beveling, the photo indicates that the wound in the foreground is a wound of exit; that is, the bullet that created the hole was travelling in a back-to-front direction.

BTW, you have BE7 turned 90 degrees counterclockwise.

[Bud]

Well, I hate to disappoint.

First off, why would you think what Dunning-Kroger Gil had to say on such matters was worth anything? All the autopsy material was reviewed by experts for the HSCA, do you think the idea he noticed something they missed working from superior photos is worthy of consideration?

Anyway, as is often the case the answer can be found on McAdam`s website....

"Groden and Livingstone:
Don't Like What a Photo Shows? Just Rotate it Ninety Degrees!
That's what "photo experts" like Robert Groden (in The Killing of a President, page 81) and Harrison Livingstone (in High Treason II) do. Wanting to show the back of Kennedy's head blown out — and thus push the notion of a Grassy Knoll shooter — they use a close-up autopsy photo of the inside of Kennedy's skull after the brain was removed. By rotating the photo ninety degrees clockwise, they can make it appear that the photo shows a large defect in the back of Kennedy's head. In actuality, Kennedy was photographed from the front, and the photo shows the top if his head blasted out, as shown in this drawing by Dr. Robert Artwohl. Finally, a large and properly-oriented copy of the head photo."

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/experts.htm

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:14:33 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

The obvious problem with this is it doesn't show the gaping rear occipital exit wound...That's where the exit beveling should be...

The evidence is fatally flawed by FBI/CIA corruption...

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> BE7 is a view of JFK's shattered skull with the frontal area in the foreground and the occiput in the background. Since you can clearly see the beveling, the photo indicates that the wound in the foreground is a wound of exit; that is, the bullet that created the hole was travelling in a back-to-front direction.
>
> BTW, you have BE7 turned 90 degrees counterclockwise.

No, you don't know WTF you're talking about. If you were correct, and the face was in the foreground, all the damage would have been in the left hemisphere of the brain.
But it wasn't. There was little if any damage to the left hemisphere. All the damage was done in the right hemisphere.
Autopsy witnesses also said the face was intact.
The photo is oriented correctly with the BACK of the head in the foreground and the face in the rear.
And entrance wound in the right front near the hairline is evident as described by witnesses and the gaping rear wound at the right rear is where the Dallas doctors placed it.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg

And on the edge of that gaping rear wound is a bevelling where the bullet that entered the hairline exited.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The exit hole in the BE7 photo looks to me as if it must be at the top of the head, maybe down the back a bit. The fake autopsy would not show us the Parkland-seen hole in the back of the head, so this damage must be the Official Story Damage, and that puts this hole at the top.

[recip...@gmail.com]

> And on the edge of that gaping rear wound is a beveling where the bullet that entered the hairline exited.

In the bottom of your orientation of the photo, there is a an elliptical shape. If you look carefully at a good copy of the photo, you'll notice that it's the open mouth of a small glass jar. If your orientation is correct, then the jar is on it's side with the body levitating over it. The former is doable, if not expected. The latter is definitely not, unless you want to argue that one of the physicians present that night was Dr Strange. Further, you can see the forward edge of the right frontal bone flap/"devils ear" seen the right frontotemporal area in the autopsy photos as well as the lateral x-rays. Your orientation would put it on the left side of the head. Nein bueno.

FWIW, the photo was taken by a tripod-mounted camera stationed at the head of the table, offset slightly to the right of JFK's centerline. While it might appear that the skull defect extends well into the left side of the skull, this is an illusion caused by the rightward offset of the camera.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:18:00 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

Gil is ignoring the fact that if this were legitimate it would show the large baseball-sized rear exit wound...



You can't ignore valid evidence and arguments and pretend you are credible...

[Gil Jesus]

Can we see the link to YOUR research ?

[robert johnson]

What links to which research?
Doyle just borrows other peoples work and that is as far as it goes.

[Ben Holmes]

More solid scientific proof is the fragment trail seen in the side
photo... the heavier fragments are all toward the read of the head,
being heavier, they traveled further. This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF of a
shot from the front - and believers already know this to be true.

They know it's true because they've refused ... EACH AND EVERY TIME,
to state where the larger fragments can be seen in the X-ray.

So *THEY* know they've been caught in a lie.

Chickenshit, Chuckles, Steven, Huckster, Von Penis ... all know that
they can't publicly say that the larger fragments are at the rear of
the head. Chickenshit & Huckster - because the *KNOW* what that
means, the others don't have a clue, but just refuse to answer on
general principles.

But they've lost.

[Ben Holmes]

All you will see are lies, evasions, and logical fallacies. What you
will *NOT* see is a credible explanation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 10:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Don't worry, no-one really expected you to man up.

> First off, why would you think what Dunning-Kroger Gil had to say
> on such matters was worth anything?

Because *anyone* can view the evidence for themselves, and make their
own judgment.

> All the autopsy material was reviewed by experts for the HSCA, do you
> think the idea he noticed something they missed working from superior
> photos is worthy of consideration?

The "experts" on the HSCA provably *LIED* about the medical evidence.
A fact you've been unable to refute. Why would anyone believe them?

> Anyway, as is often the case the answer can be found on McAdam`s website....
>
> "Groden and Livingstone:
>Don't Like What a Photo Shows? Just Rotate it Ninety Degrees!

This, of course, is a lie. Both on McAdams' part, and on yours
because you certainly know better.

THE PROSECTORS THEMSELVES stated the proper view on this photo, and
believers have been denying it ever since. (and lying about it.)

[Ben Holmes]

Why don't you answer a question before you rush to ask one?

Particularly questions that have already been answered.

[Ben Holmes]

Ah! So *YOU* believe the prosectors were lying.

Why can't you say so?

Why can't you be EXPLICIT and tell us how the prosectors lied about
this photo, and the lying experts of the HSCA somehow got it right?

> Since you can clearly see the beveling, the photo indicates that the
> wound in the foreground is a wound of exit; that is, the bullet that
> created the hole was travelling in a back-to-front direction.
>
>BTW, you have BE7 turned 90 degrees counterclockwise.

Amusing that believers whip out these logical fallacies to try to
defend their faith.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 07:48:37 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
<recip...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 6:18:00 PM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > BE7 is a view of JFK's shattered skull with the frontal area in the foreground and the occiput in the background. Since you can clearly see the beveling, the photo indicates that the wound in the foreground is a wound of exit; that is, the bullet that created the hole was travelling in a back-to-front direction.
>> >
>> > BTW, you have BE7 turned 90 degrees counterclockwise.
>> No, you don't know WTF you're talking about. If you were correct, and the face was in the foreground, all the damage would have been in the left hemisphere of the brain.
>> But it wasn't. There was little if any damage to the left hemisphere. All the damage was done in the right hemisphere.
>> Autopsy witnesses also said the face was intact.
>> The photo is oriented correctly with the BACK of the head in the foreground and the face in the rear.
>> And entrance wound in the right front near the hairline is evident as described by witnesses and the gaping rear wound at the right rear is where the Dallas doctors placed it.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg
>>
>> And on the edge of that gaping rear wound is a beveling where the bullet that entered the hairline exited.
>

>In the bottom of your orientation of the photo...

Before you respond again, how about stating EXPLICITLY that the
prosectors all lied about the orientation of this photo?

You know, tell the truth.

[Gil Jesus]

That will be hard for him to do. Mr. "Recipient x" is an EF poster who goes by the name of "Gerry Down".
This is not his real name either. "Gerry" is a brand name of a "down" jacket, as a Google search of his name will prove.
That's where he got the name.
I've also been informed by another EF member that Mr. "Down" has used a photograph of an actor as his own, a violation of the EF rules, which
state that you must post a picture of YOURSELF.
I'd turn his ass in, but when I pressed the member for the name of the actor, I got no answer.
If I get a hold of that actor's picture, rest assured, I WILL turn him in.

So don't expect the truth from this asshole.
His whole persona has been a lie since he joined the Forum.

[Mark Ulrik]

mandag den 6. februar 2023 kl. 15.32.18 UTC+1 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:19:01 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 07:48:37 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
> > <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Before you respond again, how about stating EXPLICITLY that the
> > prosectors all lied about the orientation of this photo?
> >
> > You know, tell the truth.
> That will be hard for him to do. Mr. "Recipient x" is an EF poster who goes by the name of "Gerry Down".
> This is not his real name either. "Gerry" is a brand name of a "down" jacket, as a Google search of his name will prove.
> That's where he got the name.
> I've also been informed by another EF member that Mr. "Down" has used a photograph of an actor as his own, a violation of the EF rules, which
> state that you must post a picture of YOURSELF.
> I'd turn his ass in, but when I pressed the member for the name of the actor, I got no answer.
> If I get a hold of that actor's picture, rest assured, I WILL turn him in.

We expect nothing less from you, stoolie.

[Ben Holmes]

While there are certainly critics who use another name, it's endemic
among believers.

I think Sean Coleman beat you to it just yesterday, but here's
something for you to check out.
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop

[Mark Ulrik]

Oh my. It's like the blind leading the blind. Wake up and smell the coffee, guys. Google's reverse image search has been around for more than a decade.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 10:21:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 10:01:51 AM UTC-5, m...@xml.dk wrote:
> > We expect nothing less from you, stoolie.

> Lone Nut liars like Mark Ulrik don't like the truth revealed.
>
> Here's actor Peter Stormare, whose picture Mr. Down used as his own. Exposed by Sean Coleman on the EF.
>
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28774-oswalds-midnight-press-conference/?do=findComment&comment=489856

[Charles Schuyler]

I want you to answer your questions. When will you be providing the answers?

>
> Particularly questions that have already been answered.

Me: Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

Ben needs to provide no further details. He's "carried his burden."

Per Ben and Gil, on 11/22/63, some people did something.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 08:26:10 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler

I've proven beyond all doubt that I can give credible and citable
answers to any question a believer can ask.

The converse simply isn't true. Believers REFUSE to address the
evidence.

You can't.

You lose.

>> Particularly questions that have already been answered.
>
>Me: Who killed JFK?
>
>Ben: The snipers.

LOL! This wacko is TERRIFIED of that "s." He AGREES without the "s,"
so it's clear what Chuckles is afraid of.

>Ben needs to provide no further details. He's "carried his burden."

Indeed I do. I cite for my claims, you run from yours.

>Per Ben and Gil, on 11/22/63, some people did something.

Per Chuckles' email to me, "last night I molested my mother."

[Charles Schuyler]

I'm asking you to answer your questions. When will you be providing answers?

>
> The converse simply isn't true. Believers REFUSE to address the
> evidence.
>
> You can't.
>
> You lose.
> >> Particularly questions that have already been answered.
> >
> >Me: Who killed JFK?
> >
> >Ben: The snipers.

> LOL! This wacko is TERRIFIED of that "s." He AGREES without the "s,"
> so it's clear what Chuckles is afraid of.

> >Ben needs to provide no further details. He's "carried his burden."


> Indeed I do. I cite for my claims,

You can't even specify what happened, dummy. You claim some people did something, and you lose interest in going any further with it. Ben wisely follows the adage that it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.


>you run from yours.

I make no separate claims. I have nothing to run from.

> >Per Ben and Gil, on 11/22/63, some people did something.

> Per Chuckles' email to me, "last night I molested my mother."

Projection.

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 7:31:30 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:18:00 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:




> > Gil is ignoring the fact that if this were legitimate it would show the large baseball-sized rear exit wound...
> >

> Can we see the link to YOUR research ?

Gil is using the Lone Nutter tactic of aggressively asking a question for the purpose of evading an answer to a legitimate point...Don't play dumb Gil...You are just as aware as I am that the original wound at Parkland was said to be an entry wound near the temple and baseball-sized exit wound in the occiput...It is that wound and that wound only that would show the original bevel direction...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 09:00:25 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler

When you start answering yourself.

>> The converse simply isn't true. Believers REFUSE to address the
>> evidence.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>> You lose.

Notice the dead silence here. Chuckles can't deny that he doesn't
address the evidence...

>>>> Particularly questions that have already been answered.
>>>
>>>Me: Who killed JFK?
>>>
>>>Ben: The snipers.
>>
>> LOL! This wacko is TERRIFIED of that "s." He AGREES without the "s,"
>> so it's clear what Chuckles is afraid of.
>>
>>>Ben needs to provide no further details. He's "carried his burden."
>>
>> Indeed I do. I cite for my claims,
>
> You can't even specify what happened, dummy.

Far more than you've been able to do.

And that fact tells the tale...

>>you run from yours.
>
>I make no separate claims. I have nothing to run from.

Yes moron, you DO have a claim. You simply can't defend it.

[Bud]

Will you be playing Dunning or Kroger in the skit?

> > All the autopsy material was reviewed by experts for the HSCA, do you
> > think the idea he noticed something they missed working from superior
> > photos is worthy of consideration?
> The "experts" on the HSCA provably *LIED* about the medical evidence.

Non sequitur.

> A fact you've been unable to refute.

You haven`t shown you know what a fact is.

>Why would anyone believe them?

Why would anyone believe you?

> > Anyway, as is often the case the answer can be found on McAdam`s website....
> >
> > "Groden and Livingstone:
> >Don't Like What a Photo Shows? Just Rotate it Ninety Degrees!
> This, of course, is a lie. Both on McAdams' part, and on yours
> because you certainly know better.
>
> THE PROSECTORS THEMSELVES stated the proper view on this photo,

Empty claim.

Do you know how to do anything but blow hot air?

>and
> believers have been denying it ever since. (and lying about it.)

More hot air. You`re a one man climate changer.

[recip...@gmail.com]

I'm afraid that you are completely mistaken, old chap. I mean, *completely* mistaken. Not that we haven't come to expect you to deduce a turd from a punchbowl. I am not Gerry Down, and have never called myself "Gerry Down." I have never posted under the pseudonym "Gerry Down" directly or indirectly. I have no idea who "Gerry Down" is or who he might really be. For that matter, I have never, ever posted on the Ed Forum.

The only question is why you decided to leap from the pan to the fire raging beneath. Offhand, I figure it's because you can't manage to engage with what I said in my last post, but also can't let it go without response. Therefore you opted for some bullshit diversion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:20:48 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

<recip...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:19:01 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 07:48:37 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
>>> <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Before you respond again, how about stating EXPLICITLY that the
>>> prosectors all lied about the orientation of this photo?
>>>
>>> You know, tell the truth.
>> That will be hard for him to do. Mr. "Recipient x" is an EF poster who goes by the name of "Gerry Down".
>> This is not his real name either. "Gerry" is a brand name of a "down" jacket, as a Google search of his name will prove.
>> That's where he got the name.
>> I've also been informed by another EF member that Mr. "Down" has used a photograph of an actor as his own, a violation of the EF rules, which
>> state that you must post a picture of YOURSELF.
>> I'd turn his ass in, but when I pressed the member for the name of the actor, I got no answer.
>> If I get a hold of that actor's picture, rest assured, I WILL turn him in.
>>
>> So don't expect the truth from this asshole.
>> His whole persona has been a lie since he joined the Forum.

...

>... Offhand, I figure it's because you can't manage to engage with

> what I said in my last post, but also can't let it go without
> response. Therefore you opted for some bullshit diversion.

Does anyone notice the hypocrisy here?

This anonymous believer is TERRIFIED to publicly acknowledge what the
prosectors said about the orientation of the photo.

You lost.

It's as simple as that.

[recip...@gmail.com]

You have yet to present anything that HB&F said about the orientation of BE7.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:49:46 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

This is merely your way of evading the point. Believers do this all
the time... they CONTINUALLY demand that we prove, yet again,
something that has been cited for dozens of times before.

You never learn.

Or, you *pretend* that you've never learned.

But lurkers who know the evidence know RIGHT NOW that you're merely
showing your cowardice & dishonesty... nothing more.

You lose!

[recip...@gmail.com]

If someone had "cited for dozens of times before" Humes', Boswell's, and Finck's opinions on the orientation of BE7, then it should be trivially easy for you to present at least one example.

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:04:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:49:46 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
> <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 5:28:43 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:20:48 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
> >> <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

Ben comes in to gently fondle Gil by walking him around the point that the original wound was a single large exit wound in the occipital region...


No answer from Gil over the fact that the original exit beveling would be in that wound and not the bullet-sized wound shown in his image that was AFTER the pre-surgey altered the wound...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:24:34 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

Yep. It is. Took me just a few minutes to locate. This shows that
in addition to you being a coward and a liar, you're inability to do
basic research is lacking.

I'll even give you a clue: 1966.

But this is a really simple issue - the orientation of F8 BEGINS with
what the prosectors said about it. It's IMPOSSIBLE to research the
topic of orientation without starting from this point in 1966.

So this means only one of two things:

1. You *know* what I'm speaking of, and you're simply lying about it.

2. You never bothered to do any research on this topic, and are simply
spouting what you heard someone else say.

Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
quite well.

But you're welcome to offer another possibility....

(I predict you won't.)

[recip...@gmail.com]

You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion, but want to dance around your impotence behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 15:20:45 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

And nothing has changed...

>>>>>You have yet to present anything that HB&F said about the orientation of BE7.
>>>>
>>>> This is merely your way of evading the point. Believers do this all
>>>> the time... they CONTINUALLY demand that we prove, yet again,
>>>> something that has been cited for dozens of times before.
>>>>
>>>> You never learn.
>>>>
>>>> Or, you *pretend* that you've never learned.
>>>>
>>>> But lurkers who know the evidence know RIGHT NOW that you're merely
>>>> showing your cowardice & dishonesty... nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> You lose!
>>>
>>> If someone had "cited for dozens of times before" Humes', Boswell's,
>>> and Finck's opinions on the orientation of BE7, then it should be
>>> trivially easy for you to present at least one example.
>>
>> Yep. It is. Took me just a few minutes to locate. This shows that
>> in addition to you being a coward and a liar, you're inability to do
>> basic research is lacking.

Dead silence.

>> I'll even give you a clue: 1966.
>>
>> But this is a really simple issue - the orientation of F8 BEGINS with
>> what the prosectors said about it. It's IMPOSSIBLE to research the
>> topic of orientation without starting from this point in 1966.
>>
>> So this means only one of two things:
>>
>> 1. You *know* what I'm speaking of, and you're simply lying about it.
>>
>> 2. You never bothered to do any research on this topic, and are simply
>> spouting what you heard someone else say.

And this anonymous coward couldn't offer any other explanation...

>> Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
>> quite well.
>>
>> But you're welcome to offer another possibility....
>>
>> (I predict you won't.)

Once again, my predictions have panned out perfectly!

> You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion

Of course I can. You could too, if you were honest.


>, but want to dance around your impotence...


I'm not the one who's ignorant. I know the answer.

You pretend that you don't.

You lose.

> behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.

You can lead a horse to water, and even prove him dehydrated, but you
can't make 'em drink.

[Bud]

He is waiting for you to produce the water you claimed to have. You won`t of course, you never support anything you say.

All these responses and still nothing to support this claim...

"THE PROSECTORS THEMSELVES stated the proper view on this photo, and

[recip...@gmail.com]

More hot air out of you, and you still can't deliver.

[Gil Jesus]

Dr. Mantik's research on the F8 photo and it's orientation:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/jfknumbers/posts/3089882507940600/

This "recipient x" clown is the imposter "Gerry Down" from the EF because he makes the same argument "Down" does about the orientation of F8 and
there aren't two people in the world that are that fucking stupid to think that F8 is the face of President Kennedy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 18:19:57 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

This is a slap in your face, and you can't deal with it.

>>>> Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
>>>> quite well.
>>>>
>>>> But you're welcome to offer another possibility....
>>>>
>>>> (I predict you won't.)
>>
>> Once again, my predictions have panned out perfectly!
>>
>>> You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion
>> Of course I can. You could too, if you were honest.
>>
>>>, but want to dance around your impotence...
>>
>> I'm not the one who's ignorant. I know the answer.
>>
>> You pretend that you don't.
>>
>> You lose.
>>
>>> behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.
>>
>> You can lead a horse to water, and even prove him dehydrated, but you
>> can't make 'em drink.
>
>More hot air out of you, and you still can't deliver.

You can't convince people with lies.

[Scrum Drum]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:39:03 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:53:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:24:34 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

Because Gil is a little weak in the explanation department I didn't understand this evidence until it was explained by Dr Mantik...I get it now...


Part of the problem here is Gil and the clique have two modes...Inarticulate and ignoring...If Gil just explained this to me I would have understood it...Mantik's explanation makes sense and I get it now...You can have the small partial bullet-sized exit hole and the large baseball-sized exit wound in the same place...And, yes, Gil is correct that the beveling is prima facia evidence of a shot from the front and proves the conspiracy...We were lucky enough with this photo that it possessed the semi-circle exit of the bullet through the occipital skull and left clearly-visible beveling in the front shot direction...


You see because I do not belong to a James Gordon-led booby clique I am independent enough of mind and character to admit when even one of the more clique-dependent posters is correct and do not deal with everything by school play yard bullying and tribal gangs...That said Gil doesn't help the cause because of his weak ability to defend the material over on the Education Forum...He could own Gerry Down and Payette if he had better ability to explain his material and the site wasn't overseen by a Lone Nutter-hosting manners queen (Gordon)...


Kathy Beckett is a Nazi idiot who wouldn't last ten seconds on a real level playing field forum where she had to survive by her own wit without the moderator button...She's so dumb that she doesn't detect the better material she is responsible for preventing...

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:07:37 AM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:39:03 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:53:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:24:34 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
> Because Gil is a little weak in the explanation department I didn't understand this evidence until it was explained by Dr Mantik...I get it now...
>
>
> Part of the problem here is Gil and the clique have two modes...Inarticulate and ignoring...If Gil just explained this to me I would have understood it...Mantik's explanation makes sense and I get it now...You can have the small partial bullet-sized exit hole and the large baseball-sized exit wound in the same place...And, yes, Gil is correct that the beveling is prima facia evidence of a shot from the front

Them's fightin' words for Bud & co. This is the most interesting thread here in months...

dcw

[recip...@gmail.com]

A slap from what, a mosquito? A tardigrade? A paramecium?

> >>>> Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
> >>>> quite well.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you're welcome to offer another possibility....
> >>>>
> >>>> (I predict you won't.)
> >>
> >> Once again, my predictions have panned out perfectly!
> >>
> >>> You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion
> >> Of course I can. You could too, if you were honest.
> >>
> >>>, but want to dance around your impotence...
> >>
> >> I'm not the one who's ignorant. I know the answer.
> >>
> >> You pretend that you don't.
> >>
> >> You lose.
> >>
> >>> behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.
> >>
> >> You can lead a horse to water, and even prove him dehydrated, but you
> >> can't make 'em drink.
> >
> >More hot air out of you, and you still can't deliver.

> You can't convince people with lies.

You should know. You also still can't susbstantiate your assertion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 16:48:55 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

I just point out your cowardice, no need to do anything further...

>>>>>> Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
>>>>>> quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you're welcome to offer another possibility....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I predict you won't.)
>>>>
>>>> Once again, my predictions have panned out perfectly!
>>>>
>>>>> You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion
>>>> Of course I can. You could too, if you were honest.
>>>>
>>>>>, but want to dance around your impotence...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one who's ignorant. I know the answer.
>>>>
>>>> You pretend that you don't.
>>>>
>>>> You lose.
>>>>
>>>>> behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.
>>>>
>>>> You can lead a horse to water, and even prove him dehydrated, but you
>>>> can't make 'em drink.
>>>
>>>More hot air out of you, and you still can't deliver.
>
>> You can't convince people with lies.
>
>You should know. You also still can't susbstantiate your assertion.

Put money on the table, and I'll be happy to lead you by the hand.

[Bud]

Ben always tries to put it on other people when he doesn`t back up what he says.

[recip...@gmail.com]

Again, I am not "Gerry Down", nor have I ever posted anywhere under the pseudonym "Gerry Down." I have also never posted at the EF. I have to hand it to Gil here. Most people who behave like flaming morons are at least ashamed of it when their morony is pointed out to them. On the other hand, Gil seems quite proud of being a flaming moron, enough to step up to the intertoobs and publicly spew vast gobs of abject stupidity all over the universe for all to marvel. Speaking of which:

While Gil brings up Mantik, I wonder if he realizes that Mantik agrees with me that Gil's BE7/F8 is rotated 90 degrees CCW from it's proper orientation.

For that matter let's consider Mantk's "research." To begin with, Mantik continues to claim that the Harper fragment represents a large piece of the occipital bone. This is 20-25 years after Joe Riley, a neuro-anatomist and therefore an expert in this particular field, completely destroyed any notion that the Harper fragment came from the OB. The rest of Mantik's writing is simply a pile of assertions, based on nothing other than his own internal biases. In particular, he claims that the body is lying on its back, while the head lying in "a nonstandard orientation." How they could have managed such a "nonstandard orientation" when the body was well on its way into rigor mortis 6-7 hours after death is some miracle. For reference, when the prosectors needed to get a shot of the back and back of the head, they rolled the body on its side, because they had to. Had they needed the same view for F8, they would have done the same thing, not leave the body on it's back.

[recip...@gmail.com]

You were that kid who talked and acted tough to cover up the fact that inside, he was a little chickenshit. Once in a while, he'd run his big mouth too far in front of his ability to back it up. He would meet the inevitable pushback with "oh, yeah? Wanna fight about it?" At which point his antagonist would agree, and put up his dukes. Little chickenshit was too chickenshit to actually follow up on his threat, so then be would take a few steps back, draw a line in the dirt, and challenge "oh, yeah? well, if you really want to fight, then step over this line." And li'l chickenshit's antagonist would immediately step over that line. Chickenshit would then step back, draw a circle in the dirt, and declare "If you really want to fight, step into this circle!" And his antagonist would waste no time stepping into the circle, fist still raised. And then l'il chickenshit would take more steps back, and so on and so on and so on. Too much of a pussy to back up his fat empty mouth.

You were that kid, weren't you? You're still acting just like him.

And you've probably spent your entire adult life trying to compensate for it. But, still, every morning, you wake up, go into the bathroom, look into the mirror, and see the word "PUSSY" tattooed on your forehead in massive, bright, bold letters. And every time you fail to back up your assertion, every time you dodge trying even the most pitiful of substantiation, that big "PUSSY" on your forehead glows ever so brightly. So bright that everyone can see it. We know. We've always known.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Oh, yeah. This is great. Arguing about some damn thing about which there is no common ground of even believing what it is. Is it the back of the head? The front of the head? The top of the head? Somebody else's head? Or maybe it's just a horse's ass. "The most interesting thread here in months..." Should be very productive...and interesting...But, at least, Gerry Down has changed his face on the Erectile Dysfunction Farm. Something was accomplished.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 1:30:48 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 11:47:47 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:07:37 AM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:

So Sky Throne, you are saying you have no interest in the strong possibility that this is smoking gun evidence of prima facia forensic proof of an exit wound in the Occiput that proves a shot from the front beyond a doubt?...Not even curious???...Knowing the already proven behavior of the investigation the fact they never identified this highly incriminating evidence speaks of its legitimacy...Surely Dr Mantik should know what he's talking about and I haven't seen any Nutters disprove it...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

No, I'm saying that you can't read and that you're an obnoxious sack of shit who should be banned from every forum in the universe...except the Nuthouse, of course. Here you are welcome!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 18:02:40 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

>You ...

Logical fallacies deleted.

You know that someone realizes they lost when logical fallacies are
all they have.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:44:42 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

And didn't... Gerry lost.

>> Dr. Mantik's research on the F8 photo and it's orientation:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/jfknumbers/posts/3089882507940600/
>>
>> This "recipient x" clown is the imposter "Gerry Down" from the EF because he makes the same argument "Down" does about the orientation of F8 and
>> there aren't two people in the world that are that fucking stupid to think that F8 is the face of President Kennedy.
>
>Again, I am not "Gerry Down"

I think that's a perfectly good name to hang on you.

Cowards are usually happy to remain anonymous.


>While Gil brings up Mantik...

I'll stick with the prosectors... You're clearly TERRIFIED of them.

> For that matter let's consider Mantk's "research."...

Dunning Kruger in full force!

[recip...@gmail.com]

My last reply must've cut right to the bone for you to delete it the twist your head 'round and 'round to avoid dealing with it.

And you went back to your old standby of mumbling about some "logical fallacy" that you are unable to specify.

And, of course, you still can't back up your assertion about Humes.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

> Again, I am not "Gerry Down", nor have I ever posted anywhere under the pseudonym "Gerry Down." I have also never posted at the EF. I have to hand it to Gil here. Most people who behave like flaming morons are at least ashamed of it when their morony is pointed out to them. On the other hand, Gil seems quite proud of being a flaming moron, enough to step up to the intertoobs and publicly spew vast gobs of abject stupidity all over the universe for all to marvel. Speaking of which:

Yeah you are. There aren't two people in the world stupid enough to think F8 is the front of JFK's head.
You've been outed and you're attacks on me are proof.
The truth pisses people like you off because lies are your native tongue..
You're a poser and a fraud. Your credibility is nil.
Did you ever pose as "Christopher Strimbu" ?

[Gil Jesus]

The HSCA didn't agree with Mr. Down. They idenitfied F8 as a defect on the "RIGHT FRONTOPARIETAL region after reflection of the scalp", meaning that the orientation of the skull
in F8 had the REAR of the skull in the foreground. ( 7 HSCA 118-119 )

The frontoparietal region s NOT in the front of the head but between the frontal and parietal sections of the brain. That they identofied it as being on the RIGHT side
gives us the proper orientation of the F8 photo.

They also Identified the bevel on the outer skull table after explaining that bevelling was indicative of an EXIT wound. ( 7 H 108 )

Unfortunately, they never identified that bevel as an exit wound. Their cop-out was that it was too blurry.
But the Fox copy proves it was an exit wound and an exit wound proves it was made by a shot from the front.

End of story.

[Scrum Drum]

Just like the Prayer Man liars who said Davidson showing Stanton's face on Prayer Man was too blurry...


That bevel in F8 is clear as day to me and I can clearly see an exit wound on the outside of the skull from a bullet exiting...


Mantik puts F8 in the Occiput exactly where Hill saw the huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head...If so this is final prima facia, smoking gun forensic evidence of a shot from the front...


Game Over Lone Nutters...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 19:53:13 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

>My last reply ...

Was a logical fallacy.

The orientation of F8 as given by the prosectors when they first
viewed it is the topic.

Cowardice is refusing to answer the question.

[Bud]

Why would anyone believe that?

> Cowardice is refusing to answer the question.

It is begged. You refuse to back up your assertion because you are yellow.

[recip...@gmail.com]

First off, F8 is a photograph, not a bodily defect.

That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:

"315. Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly. (See fig. 25, a closeup photograph of the semicircular exit defect on the margin of the fracture line in the right parietal region.)

"FIGURE 25.--Closeup photograph of the semicircular exit defect in the margin of the fracture fragment in the right parietal region."

What does this mean?

"closeups of the margins of the fracture line the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. "

This puts the edge of a "fracture line" in the foreground of the photo. The frontal ("fronto-") part of the cranium refers to --natch-- the front of the cranium; the parietal area is the very top of the cranium. This is the same whether you are talking about the head generally, the skull, the cranium, or the brain itself. So the fracture with the semicircular defect is on top of the head towards the front. Which places the defect itself forwards on the skull.

As an aside, since the brain was removed before these photos were taken, the odds that the FPP was referring to the brain when they used "fronto-parietal" are ridiculously small.

The rest of paragraph, and the photo reference show that the FPP did indeed explicitly identify the semicircular defect as the exit wound.

This Ida Dox drawing shows where the HSCA put the entry and exit wounds:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm

You're wrong on every count here.

And, again, I am not Gerry Down, have never claimed to be a person named Gerry Down, have never posted as Gerry Down, and have never posted on the EF.

[recip...@gmail.com]

I've never claimed to be, represented myself as, or posted under the name of Gerry Down, nor have I ever claimed to be, represented myself as, or posted under the name of Christopher Strimbu.

You say "There aren't two people in the world stupid enough to think F8 is the front of JFK's head." Sturdivan thinks that F8 shows the front of the head, and he's seen all of the original photos at the Archives. Same with Chad Zimmerman. And Dr Artwohl. And Joe Durnavitch. And the HSCA FPP, as I've just demonstrated in another post. And Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist retained as a consultant by the HSCA. Am I all these other people, too? :-D

[Bud]

Gil is rarely right about anything.

And it struck me just how absurd the underlying idea is in what he is suggesting. The HSCA produced the photos and *enhancements* of the photos so the biggest stump walking upright can catch them.

Or Gil is Dunning-Krugering. Tough call.

And that is the explanation, that they have the orientation wrong. But they will lie, and claim that no explanation has been given.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:45:43 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

Only *YOU* have made that claim. Are you STUPID or what?

>That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:

Meaningless. I find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in this
forum absolutely refuses to publicly state what orientation the
prosectors assigned to F8 when they first viewed it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 10:01:05 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
<recip...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 4:41:45 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Again, I am not "Gerry Down", nor have I ever posted anywhere under the pseudonym "Gerry Down." I have also never posted at the EF. I have to hand it to Gil here. Most people who behave like flaming morons are at least ashamed of it when their morony is pointed out to them. On the other hand, Gil seems quite proud of being a flaming moron, enough to step up to the intertoobs and publicly spew vast gobs of abject stupidity all over the universe for all to marvel. Speaking of which:
>>
>> Yeah you are. There aren't two people in the world stupid enough to think F8 is the front of JFK's head.
>> You've been outed and you're attacks on me are proof.
>> The truth pisses people like you off because lies are your native tongue..
>> You're a poser and a fraud. Your credibility is nil.
>> Did you ever pose as "Christopher Strimbu" ?
>
> I've never claimed to be, represented myself as, or posted under the
> name of Gerry Down, nor have I ever claimed to be, represented myself
> as, or posted under the name of Christopher Strimbu.

Says the anonymous liar...

> You say "There aren't two people in the world stupid enough to think
> F8 is the front of JFK's head."

Amusingly, this moron goes on to name people who've never posted here,
or indeed in forums at all... and thinks he's made a point! LOL!

I've deleted it of course....

Run Gerry, RUN!!!

[Bud]

You are too big a coward to ever back up this empty claim.

[Bud]

Of course. you`re a coward.

> Run Gerry, RUN!!!

[recip...@gmail.com]

This is what Gil actually wrote: "They idenitfied F8 as a defect on the 'RIGHT FRONTOPARIETAL region after reflection of the scalp.'" The sentence defines 'f8' as a 'defect' not a photo. Do you not know how to read?

> >That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:
>
> Meaningless.

You wish. And Gil wishes even more. But if Gil wants to misrepresent what the HSCA FPP concluded, then he needs to be corrected like an errant puppy.

> I find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in this forum absolutely refuses to publicly state what orientation the prosectors assigned to F8 when they first viewed it.

And still, you assert something without backing it up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:38:49 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

Are you too stupid to follow ordinary English?

Nothing Gil said would lead an intelligent person to think that he
thought F8 was a defect.

All you're doing is showing yourself to be a troll, Gerry.

>>>That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:
>>
>> Meaningless.
>
>You wish.

It has **NOTHING** to do with how the prosectors described the
orientation of F8 when they first saw it.

>> I find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in this forum
>> absolutely refuses to publicly state what orientation the prosectors
>> assigned to F8 when they first viewed it.
>
>And still, you assert something without backing it up.

It's not up to me to "prove" a negative. It's up to *YOU* to prove
what I stated is a lie. All you need to do is tell us what that
orientation was. Or cite where a believer has stated it in this
forum.

[recip...@gmail.com]

Gil's statement was unlimited "..aren't two people in the world..." so your interjection is beside the point. I guess you don't know how to read after all.

[Bud]

What a stupid thing to say. You need to support your claims, which it is quite apparent you will never do. So there is no reason to believe your claim is true.

>All you need to do is tell us what that
> orientation was. Or cite where a believer has stated it in this
> forum.

I quoted McAdam`s site here, stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:50:11 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

<recip...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 8:04:28 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 10:01:05 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
>> <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 4:41:45 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, I am not "Gerry Down", nor have I ever posted anywhere under the pseudonym "Gerry Down." I have also never posted at the EF. I have to hand it to Gil here. Most people who behave like flaming morons are at least ashamed of it when their morony is pointed out to them. On the other hand, Gil seems quite proud of being a flaming moron, enough to step up to the intertoobs and publicly spew vast gobs of abject stupidity all over the universe for all to marvel. Speaking of which:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah you are. There aren't two people in the world stupid enough to think F8 is the front of JFK's head.
>>>> You've been outed and you're attacks on me are proof.
>>>> The truth pisses people like you off because lies are your native tongue..
>>>> You're a poser and a fraud. Your credibility is nil.
>>>> Did you ever pose as "Christopher Strimbu" ?
>>>
>>> I've never claimed to be, represented myself as, or posted under the
>>> name of Gerry Down, nor have I ever claimed to be, represented myself
>>> as, or posted under the name of Christopher Strimbu.
>> Says the anonymous liar...
>>> You say "There aren't two people in the world stupid enough to think
>>> F8 is the front of JFK's head."
>>
>> Amusingly, this moron goes on to name people who've never posted here,
>> or indeed in forums at all... and thinks he's made a point! LOL!
>

>Gil's statement was unlimited...


You've already shown you can't handle ordinary English.

Why not man up and tell us what the prosectors thought the orientation
of F8 was when they first saw it?

Or, of course, you can run again...

As believers do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Bud]

The irony is deep with this one.

[recip...@gmail.com]

Gil wrote what he wrote, and it meant what it meant. Maybe Gil didn't intend that sentence to come out the way it did, but I can't read Gil's mind. I can only go by what he wrote, and he wrote "they idenitfied F8 as a defect on the 'RIGHT FRONTOPARIETAL region after reflection of the scalp." Not "they identified F8 a photograph of a defect in the 'right frontoparietal region."

> All you're doing is showing yourself to be a troll, Gerry.
> >>>That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:
> >>
> >> Meaningless.
> >
> >You wish.
> It has **NOTHING** to do with how the prosectors described the
> orientation of F8 when they first saw it.

Again with the baseless assertion, this time expressed as insinuation, and again without any substantiation.

> >> I find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in this forum
> >> absolutely refuses to publicly state what orientation the prosectors
> >> assigned to F8 when they first viewed it.
>
> >And still, you assert something without backing it up.
>
> It's not up to me to "prove" a negative. It's up to *YOU* to prove
> what I stated is a lie. All you need to do is tell us what that
> orientation was. Or cite where a believer has stated it in this
> forum.

Pointing out that you don't substantiate your vague assertion isn't demanding that you prove a negative. If anything, it's the exact opposite. And I never claimed that what you stated was a lie. Reality isn't your strong suit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 19:30:35 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

And you're too dishonest to be able to read it...

>> All you're doing is showing yourself to be a troll, Gerry.

Still true...

>>>>>That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>>You wish.
>>
>> It has **NOTHING** to do with how the prosectors described the
>> orientation of F8 when they first saw it.
>

>Again ...


And again, and again, untill you answer the question.

Get used to it.

>>>> I find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in this forum
>>>> absolutely refuses to publicly state what orientation the prosectors
>>>> assigned to F8 when they first viewed it.
>>
>>>And still, you assert something without backing it up.
>>
>> It's not up to me to "prove" a negative. It's up to *YOU* to prove
>> what I stated is a lie. All you need to do is tell us what that
>> orientation was. Or cite where a believer has stated it in this
>> forum.
>

>Pointing out....


That you're a coward who refuses to tell everyone what orientation the
prosectors originally gave F8.... yes.

Cowards run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Bud]

That would be you.

> yes.
>
> Cowards run.

You are the one snipping what other people write.

> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 6:07:06 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:44:42 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
> > <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:39:03 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:53:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:24:34 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

David Josephs is arguing with half way Lone Nutter Pat Speer over the Mantik photo where Pat is backing the Lone Nutters...



As is usual in the dysfunctional, incompetent research world the participants in the Education Forum thread are not mentioning the clearly-seen beveled exit wound in that photo where the rear-exiting bullet shot through the skull from the front...Even Gil stays quiet and doesn't deploy his own evidence like a dummy...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 10:21:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:18:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 10:14:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 11:46:30 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:14:33 AM UTC-8, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Dr. Humes' final autopsy report stated that "in the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits bevelling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." ( 16 H 981 )
>>>>>
>>>>> One autopsy photograph proves this was not so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike an exit wound in flesh, which leaves a ragged or jagged edge to the wound, an exit wound in the skull blasts out of the bone leaving a "bevel" at the point of exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/skin_bone-1024x494.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> A bevel on the inside table of the skull indicates a wound of entry while a bevel on the outside of the skull indicates a wound of exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/bevelling.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is a typical gunshot wound to the skull showing the entrance wound ( A ) on the outside of the skull and the bevelling on the inside of the skull ( B ) as the bullet exited the bone.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/gunshot-entrance-wound.png
>>>>>
>>>>> Humes' statement that the bevelling was seen "when viewing from the inner aspect of the skull" indicates that the wound was a wound of entry. ( CE 387, pg. 4 )
>>>>>
>>>>> But autopsy photo BE7 - HI, shows a bevelling of the wound on the OUTSIDE of the skull on the perimeter of the large exit wound.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> This bevelling indicates that a bullet EXITED at the large head wound. The autopsy photo does not support the autopsy report.
>>>>>
>>>>> The autopsy report indicates that Humes knew how to interpret the bevelling information. Three fragments which were blown off the skull in Dealey Plaza found their way to Bethesda and were included in the autopsy report. The largest of these had a bevelling on the outside which Humes correctly identified as an exit wound. ( 16 H 981 )
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WH_Vol16_981-autopsy-report-4-647x1024.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> If he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large fragment indicated a wound of exit, he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large wound in the back of the skull indicated an exit wound as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fig_h3_sml.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, Dr. Humes changed the exit wound he saw to an entrance wound. He deliberately lied about the head wound he saw. With Oswald positioned behind the motorcade, they had to have the official record show all shots were fired from behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the reason why he and the Secret Service pressured the Dallas doctors, specifically Dr. Malcolm Perry, to back off his statement that the throat wound was an entry wound.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the reason why Humes lied to Rydberg about the autopsy photos and x-rays being unavailable and why he preferred dictating a description of the wounds. Rydberg could not be allowed to see the evidence that proved Humes' autopsy report was a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's also the real reason why Humes burned his original autopsy notes after Lee Harvey Oswald was dead. The medical people involved in the autopsy were sworn to secrecy under penalty of court-martial.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MD195-letter-of-silence-Custer.png
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these actions when combined could only serve one sinister purpose: to hide the fact that the shot that hit the President in the throat and at least one that hit him in the head came from the front.
>>>> Eager to see the LN response to this!
>>>
>>> Well, I hate to disappoint.
>>
>> Don't worry, no-one really expected you to man up.
>>
>>> First off, why would you think what Dunning-Kroger Gil had to say
>>> on such matters was worth anything?
>>
>> Because *anyone* can view the evidence for themselves, and make their
>> own judgment.


Logical fallacy deleted.


>>> All the autopsy material was reviewed by experts for the HSCA, do you
>>> think the idea he noticed something they missed working from superior
>>> photos is worthy of consideration?
>>
>> The "experts" on the HSCA provably *LIED* about the medical evidence.
>
> Non sequitur.


Only a liar would think that honesty isn't an important consideration
when determining the truth.


>> A fact you've been unable to refute.
>>
>>Why would anyone believe them?
>>
>>> Anyway, as is often the case the answer can be found on McAdam`s website....
>>>
>>> "Groden and Livingstone:
>>>Don't Like What a Photo Shows? Just Rotate it Ninety Degrees!
>> This, of course, is a lie. Both on McAdams' part, and on yours
>> because you certainly know better.
>>
>> THE PROSECTORS THEMSELVES stated the proper view on this photo,
>
> Empty claim.


Here we see Chickenshit simply lying. He knows full well that the
prosectors identified this photo as a rear view.


>> and believers have been denying it ever since. (and lying about it.)


Chickenshit proves me right again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:56:39 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Perhaps because they can read the very first sentence in this post?

>> Cowardice is refusing to answer the question.
>
> It is begged.

Asking someone to state or cite the evidence cannot EVER be "begged."


But you well-named yourself, Chickenshit. Cowardice is you indeed!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 17:04:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>>>> Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
>>>> quite well.
>>>>
>>>> But you're welcome to offer another possibility....
>>>>
>>>> (I predict you won't.)
>> Once again, my predictions have panned out perfectly!
>>> You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion
>> Of course I can. You could too, if you were honest.
>>
>>
>>>, but want to dance around your impotence...
>>
>> I'm not the one who's ignorant. I know the answer.
>>
>> You pretend that you don't.
>>
>> You lose.
>>> behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.
>> You can lead a horse to water, and even prove him dehydrated, but you
>> can't make 'em drink.
>

> He is waiting for you to produce the water you claimed to have.
> You won`t of course, you never support anything you say.
>
> All these responses and still nothing to support this claim...


Here we see that Chickenshit is a liar too. *He* knows that I'm
telling the simple and provable truth.


> "THE PROSECTORS THEMSELVES stated the proper view on this photo, and

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:36:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:00:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 16:48:55 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"
>> <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:13:32 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 18:19:57 -0800 (PST), "recip...@gmail.com"

>>>> This is a slap in your face, and you can't deal with it.
>>>
>>>A slap from what, a mosquito? A tardigrade? A paramecium?
>> I just point out your cowardice, no need to do anything further...

>>>>>>>> Surprising no-one at all, "cowardice" and "dishonesty" cover these
>>>>>>>> quite well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you're welcome to offer another possibility....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I predict you won't.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, my predictions have panned out perfectly!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still can't come up with a cite to prove your assertion
>>>>>> Of course I can. You could too, if you were honest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>, but want to dance around your impotence...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not the one who's ignorant. I know the answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You pretend that you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behind a veil of vague mumbles. Figures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can lead a horse to water, and even prove him dehydrated, but you
>>>>>> can't make 'em drink.
>>>>>

>>>>>More hot air out of you, and you still can't deliver.
>>>
>>>> You can't convince people with lies.
>>>
>>>You should know. You also still can't susbstantiate your assertion.
>>
>> Put money on the table, and I'll be happy to lead you by the hand.
>

> Ben always tries ...

No "trying" involved. I've proven BEYOND ALL DOUBT that believers are
either ignorant or liars, and most likely both.

*YOU* know the answer... and you refuse to give it.

You lose.

I win.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 06:10:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Of course...


See? Even *YOU* recognize the simple fact that I just delete logical
fallacies.


>> Run Gerry, RUN!!!


Amusingly, he did... :)

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:12:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Gil is rarely right about anything.
>
> And it struck me just how absurd the underlying idea is in what he
> is suggesting. The HSCA produced the photos and *enhancements* of the
> photos so the biggest stump walking upright can catch them.
>
> Or Gil is Dunning-Krugering. Tough call.
>
> And that is the explanation, that they have the orientation wrong.
> But they will lie, and claim that no explanation has been given.

No need to "lie" at all, you cannot quote the answer to the question
of what orientation did the prosectors first ascribe to F8 when they
first saw it.

There's only two possible reasons:

1. You know, and are TERRIFIED of that answer, and are too cowardily
to publicly state the answer - because it contradices your faith.

2. You're ignorant and don't know the answer, and are incapable of
even the most basic of reseach skills to find out.

There's no third option... the proof, of course, is that believers
can't offer any other reason why they refuse to publicly state what
orientation the prosectors first stated.

And this fact tells the tale.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:56:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

ROTFLMAO!!!

**YOU** could prove me a liar by merely quoting or citing one answer.
I cannot quote every single thing every believer in this forum has
ever said, and show that a statement does not exist.

You're a MORON EXTRAORDINAIRE to think that it's up to someone to
prove a negative.

>>All you need to do is tell us what that
>> orientation was. Or cite where a believer has stated it in this
>> forum.
>

> I quoted McAdam`s site here...


Did it give the answer to the question?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:59:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

The refusal to answer runs deep with ALL believers...

>> Or, of course, you can run again...
>>
>> As believers do...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!!!

And Chickenshit didn't disappoint!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:31:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Who was it that asked the question?

You can't answer that.

>> yes.
>>
>> Cowards run.
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!

And Chickenshit ran again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 06:10:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit doesn't want to defend Gerry.

>>>That being said, this is how the HSCA FPP actually described the photo:
>>
>> Meaningless. I find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in this
>> forum absolutely refuses to publicly state what orientation the
>> prosectors assigned to F8 when they first viewed it.
>
> You are too big a coward to ever back up this empty claim.

How can it be an "empty" claim? The proof is clearly evident. All you
had to do was tell us what orientation the prosectors first gave...
but you refused.

Nor can you cite any other believer giving the answer.