Repost - The 45 Questions that Terrify LNT'ers.
Ben Holmes
top-posting now...)
I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're
in no particular order:
1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was
virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the
head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular
defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region
there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the
Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not
admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of
medical witnesses.
3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to
demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC
was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is
almost funny to watch...
4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the
source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot
from the left?
5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,
changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts
that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How
could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a
fellow police officer?
6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,
and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his
statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would
have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the
bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.
Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you
remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots
hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that
time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were
trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the
first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was
standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped
completely.
Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment
there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of
shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the
Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why
was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of
the WCR?
7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be seen in
the extant Zapruder film?
8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has
asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret
Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene
procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?
Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned
action?
9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this
meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the
best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no
reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in
burying the NAA data?
10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison
trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck
was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was
'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a
*reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state
prosecution?
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of
meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move
Baker’s time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They
did so by false statements, why was this needed?
12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general
atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the
paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commmission. Dr. Guinn
said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of
the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should
also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax
impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had
informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'
because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.
'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and
conducted two parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight
occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested
by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a
primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report,
quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's
cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we
found out about Oswald becuase it is secret until the publication of the Warren
Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, pg 152-153
These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were
contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact
that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was
not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory*
for Oswald...
Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without
allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results?
Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still
denied by most LNT'ers today?
13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce
(two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed
themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by
two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from
Connally's stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered
more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a
conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and
bone with the actual rifle." "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964,
written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964.
Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce)
fired when he refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC
refused to allow him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in
the WCR.)
14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers
refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
(Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he
*requested* the supporting evidence)
15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on
the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the
autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running
away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was
twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest
fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do:
*******************************************
> I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough,
> wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what
> Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found.
John McAdams:
We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's
apparently just a sliver.
******************************************
Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"?
Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually
round object, the best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to
frame Oswald.
16. "I also found some surprising results based on the chest X-ray. I made
accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The
front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance
of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.
Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the
back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was
described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.
When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then
connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw
that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have
caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest
X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine.
Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse
processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width
of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere
in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the
upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another
problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung
damage of this type was seen by the pathologists and none is seen on the X-rays
either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then
exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major
lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact
measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves
direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at
the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158
Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that
this *is* possible?
17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even
John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and
completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes
were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was
done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed
in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing:
"I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer
who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same
officer did not agree to statein the autopsy report that the autopsy was
incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the
first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony,
more than three months after the autopsy."
Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple
historical fact?
19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the
inventory? Only the government had control of them... John McAdams has denied
that any photo or X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the
eyewitnesses liars - and beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The
prosectors described only *TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea,
which they were prevented from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH
THEY STATE THAT THEY PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen.
(Interestingly, this also happened in the RFK case, missing photographs...
although the controlling agency in this case was the LAPD)
20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they
actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly,
this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was
the LAPD that took to harrassing CT journalists and researchers.)
21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed
Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid
reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you
provide it?
22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians
forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification?
23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the
small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince
me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz
told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz
stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -
First Day Evidence, pg 212
"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination
investigation wa J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the
camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office
on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It
listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De
Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property
Bureau.
However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De
Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a
'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of
'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the
fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day
Evidence, pg 214
Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a
Minox camera owned by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive
camera... and it seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence
operatives because of their small size.
24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
government investigators?
25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical
testimony... why??
26. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and
"photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Or can you point to these "theories" being
used in any prior legal case...
27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
extant Z-film?
28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the
reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.
With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them
*highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo),
LNT'ers really can't deny what happened.
So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all
immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that
Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.
BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!!
And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else
(ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to
do.
LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the
eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case.
Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE
EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?*
29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the
location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in
contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr. Mantik has reported that using stereo
viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D, contrary to everything else, which shows in
3D. Many have noted the "wet" appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the
lateral X-ray also has a "white patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik
reports that optical density measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a
"bonehead"... solid bone all the way across. Why is there such a distinct and
common pattern among eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?
30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the
Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report
stated that the wound extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and
scalp... this simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able
to point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo -
yet the autopsy report, *all* prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large
wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp.
31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of
outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or
the date that Oswald left England...
32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the
weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the
Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the
Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not
inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance"
of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit*
that these attempts are historical and known?
33. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified finger-print found in the
Sniper’s Nest? This pattern of burying and disregarding any exculpatory evidence
is troubling at best, and dishonest to those who study more deeply how the
Warren Commission operated.
34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference
with Dr. Perry? We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of
the conference, and they refused to do so... why?
35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session:
***************************************
Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and
the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the
neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present
time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a
fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must
have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the
picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below
the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where
the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and
the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that
particular bullet, and go through.
*****************************************
"Below the shoulder blades?"
"probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?"
Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy
report that would support these statements?
Was Spector simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a
mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said?
36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it
came to the assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the
Muchmore film being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film
reportedly returning in a different condition from when it was taken from him?
This isn't to mention the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken
*and never returned*
37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser,
found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth
floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR
143)
Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's
edition.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open
boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it
laying over there.
Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches,
something like that.
Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs
right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up
and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about
four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the
part you go down and the part you go up.
Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)
BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location
of the three cartridges?
Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after
Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the
cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By
that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with
officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H
289)
The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen
that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard
that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The
clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was
"discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission?
38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292)
"Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the
assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the
name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313)
"Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent
search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name."
(WCR 645)
But the actual evidence shows otherwise:
"I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being
first duly sworn, depose and say:
...While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so
as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not
merely an inadvertent mispronounciation. It is possible that Oswald might have
heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me
"Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or
hearing this name." (8H 318)
If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition,
they'll need to face this:
Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel?
Mr. POWERS. No, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now.
Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288)
The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a
Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See
CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI,
Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel.
Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at
the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing
respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg
269)
Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in
the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by
Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in
with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase
Silvia Meagher)
Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the
evidence in the case of this 'alias'?
39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same
day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton
that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before
proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,
Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved
to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left
England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in
provable conflict with their own evidence:
Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no
commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order
to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the
only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This
wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply
lie about the day Owald left London...
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
40. The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the
hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen
Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and
was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)
But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was
telling the truth or not:
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he
stand out there next to you?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or
behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I
was being nosey and listening.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant
from you, the distance from you to me?
Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess,
about as far as you are from me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?
Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)
Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?
Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?
(Mrs. Tice marks.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder?
Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on
the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?
Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the
time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)
The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to
state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just
3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her
testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence
contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice
had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that
Brennan had never seen Oswald before...
Once again, the question becomes why did the Warren Commission feel that it
needed to lie about it's own collected evidence in order to 'prove' the truth?
When does the truth need a lie to support it?
41. The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the
BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.
Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:
"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA
had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of
the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented
itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated
Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large
rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the
autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the
back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided
with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who
attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted
in the photographs. None had differing accounts."
This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the
1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished
interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that
several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.
See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes
of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by
the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a
medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second
shooter."
http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_2.htm
This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has
undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and
HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
attempting to frame LHO?
There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
purchase documents.
Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
the assassination?
43. Admiral George Burkley was the only medically trained doctor to be present
at both Parkland and Bethesda, yet was strangely absent from any questioning by
the WC.
When the HSCA rolled around, despite a letter from Burkley's attorney, stating
that Burkley "has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that
others besides Oswald must have participated.", the HSCA waited close to a year
before interviewing Dr. Burkley. Then, strangely enough, evidently never
questioned Dr. Burkley on his assertion that others must have participated in
the assassination.
Can anyone explain these curious facts in light of a *real* investigation?
44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr.
George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion.
A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness
statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it?
It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything
that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into
concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts.
In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden,
the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost
finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it
"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence."
"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"???
Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so
that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take
Loquvam's revealing statement out.
Why does the truth require lies to support it?
And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute
that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports?
45. Despite being widely hailed by the media as an "exhaustive study produced by
honorable and prestigious men", the Warren Commission Report was unable to find
any room in its 888 page report, or 26 volumes of supporting evidence for the
very first piece of paperwork generated in any murder case - the death
certificate.
Perhaps they just didn't have any room left? Can anyone defend this?
It's the evidence which shows two conspiracies - the initial one to murder JFK,
and a secondary conspiracy to cover up the facts in this case. Because it's the
evidence, LNT'ers don't have much answer to questions such as these.
The most common response seems to be to deny the basic underlying information,
but this simply won't do for the honest lurker. These questions *must* be
answered if the theory of a "Lone Nut" (Two of them), is to survive the light of
day.
It's also interesting to see how many similar questions can be put together for
another conspiracy that Bugliosi proved - that of RFK. (Yes, for those unaware,
it was Vincent Bugliosi that proved a conspiracy in the RFK case... if more than
8 shots were fired, then ipso facto, a conspiracy existed.)
In many ways, it seems as if the conspiracy that took the life of RFK 'learned'
from the mistakes of the JFK conspiracy. They still made mistakes, of course...
*********************************
Ben, you may have already incorporated these questions in your list of
45, but in case you haven't, the following are offered for your
consideration, each in a separate posting.
1. Why didn't the WC receive the original Autopsy Face Sheet signed
"Verified G. Burkley"?
Admiral (and Doctor) Burkley personally wrote the above inscription on
the Body Diagram of the Autopsy Face Sheet, confirming that the wounds
on the diagram were accurately positioned. But on the copies supplied to
the WC, his signature does not appear. As a result, the WC dismissed the
Face Sheet as showing only rough locations for the wounds, especially
the back wound which is clearly marked at T3.
It wasn't until an FOIA suit in 1975, brought by Harold Weisberg, when
the original "Verified" Face Sheet was brought to light.
According to Dr. Humes' testimony the autopsy report was submitted to
"higher authority" on November 24. This could only mean up the chain of
command, i.e. Humes' military superiors. This top brass, either as an
individual or a group, must be responsible for the withholding of the
original Face Sheet from the WC, resulting in their dismissal of the
correct wound placements. Is there an innocent reason for this
withholding of evidence from the WC?
On p.62 of Shaw and Harris' Cover-up can be found both versions of the
Face Sheet.-----Old Laz
*********************************
Only two half-serious efforts were ever made to answer these, one by our
resident troll, Buddy... and one by McAdams. If anyone is interested, and
cannot locate the best answers the LNT'er crowd has been able to present, I'll
be happy to locate these previous efforts and cite or repost 'em.
In the meantime, are there *any* honest LNT'ers who'd like to try? You won't be
able to stop the landslide of conspiracy belief until issues like these are
explained.
Burly...@gmail.com
> This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or
> top-posting now...)
>
> I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
>
> But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're
> in no particular order:
Herein lies your problem, Mr. Holmes, with receiving the response you
want from those you refer to as "LNTer's".
You start off on the wrong foot. You shouldn't start off your request
for people you refer to as "LNTer's" to respond to your "questions"
with insulting remarks such as you have on display here.
Try again.
> Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol...
> http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Que...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
many questions)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
> This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or
> top-posting now...)
>
> I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
>
> But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're
> in no particular order:
>
>
> 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
> location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
> exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK�s face was
> virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. The fact is they didn`t
have the data to conduct that sort of testing.
> 2. Why do LNT�ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the
> head,
They accept Kennedy had a wound on the back of his head. Next...
> when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular
> defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
> but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region
> there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the
> Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not
> admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of
> medical witnesses.
>
>
> 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to
> demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC
> was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is
> almost funny to watch...
The fallacy of this question lies in the assumption that Harris has
developed evidence. Establish that as fact before proceeding.
> 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the
> source of shots being fired?
Probably because that is the direction they thought they heard the
sound of shots from.
>If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
> claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
> eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW�s, why didn�t anyone specify a shot
> from the left?
They probably indicated where they thought they heard them from.
> 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,
> changed to revolver?
You think bullets can change type?
>Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand,
Establish that Hill had the shells in his hand when he made that
transmission.
> and asserts
> that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report.
Where did he assert that?
> How
> could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a
> fellow police officer?
In what meaningful way does this statement rule out dumb error?
And of course Ben the kook thinks a mistake is some amazing, never-
could-happen occurance, but Ben thinks dozens of DPD changing
evidence to frame an innocent in the murder of one their own as not
far fetched at all. .
> 6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,
> and looking directly at JFK during the shooting
The whole time?
> (according to both his
> statements, and the Altgen's photo of him).
According to his statements, he was riding the rear right fender of
the limo, and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
> We *KNOW* that his testimony would
> have been devastating to the SBT -
What we know is that Chaney didn`t testify, so we have no testimony
to examine.
> since we know that Chaney asserted that the
> bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.
Bullets go really fast, unlikely he saw different bullets strike
the two men.
> Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you
> remember?
> Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots
> hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
> Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
> Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that
> time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
> and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were
> trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the
> first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
> Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
> Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was
> standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped
> completely.
> Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
> Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
> Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
> Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment
> there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
>
> Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of
> shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory,
And dozens of other witnesses.
>can anyone defend the
> Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly?
You aren`t giving any reason to doubt their honesty. You are
criticizing what they did.
> Why
> was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of
> the WCR?
Aren`t you asking for speculation?
> 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
> people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
> dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be seen in
> the extant Zapruder film?
Testing done on the z-film shows the limo did slow down.
> 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo?
There were. Next...
>John McAdams has
> asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret
> Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene
> procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?
> Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned
> action?
>
>
> 9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this
> meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the
> best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no
> reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID
> EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in
> burying the NAA data?
Nothing here thats needs responding to, just unsupported claims.
For instance, Ben can produce no exculpatory evidence, yet thinks
saying such evidence exists should be enough.
> 10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison
> trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck
> was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was
> 'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a
> *reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state
> prosecution?
You`re asking for speculation, aren`t you?
Thats enough for no. Doubtful Ben will ever be man enough to
support the claims and opinions expressed on this list of questions,
so there isn`t much use of knocking them all down.
<SNIP>
aeffects
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
> many questions)....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Dudster you ought to be ashamed of yourself..... you're hereby charged
with:
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other
ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with
abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a
new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions
who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Burly...@gmail.com
You don't understand, Mr. Healy.
The person( in the case, Ben Holmes) who is asking for someone to
respond to what he/she posts-- here or elsewhere-- is at the
people's' ("CT" or "LN") mercy. He is asking them to do him a favor
and pay attntion to him. Therefore, the ''people'' have every right
to do and say ( i.e. ignore or respond to) what they wish, to the
person who is asking them to diginfy his or her points. It's not the
other way around.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes has been laughed at more than Bob Hope. His questions have
been answered numerous times...now, it's the attention he CRAVES. As
with Rossley, Jesus/Robcap and Healy, he belongs to a select group of
CT's who run when challenged....make myriads of vile repugnant
comments BECAUSE they are uneducated, treasoness liars and WE ALL KNOW
IT. Poser: Case closed!
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce83e177-566c-40e7...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Holmes has been laughed at more than Bob Hope. His questions have
been answered numerous times...now, it's the attention he CRAVES. As
with Rossley, Jesus/Robcap and Healy, he belongs to a select group of
CT's who run when challenged....make myriads of vile repugnant
comments BECAUSE they are uneducated, treasoness liars and WE ALL KNOW
IT. Poser: Case closed!
NOBODY can show ONE post from Yo(Momma)Harvey addressing either one of
THESE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Who's yer Daddy NOW, Spiffy????
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
I invite everyone to look up Buddy the troll's response to the 45 questions -
I'm sure he'll be happy to provide a link for you.
The largest single category of responses by Buddy the troll was simple denial of
the facts.
Bud
I responded to the first ten once more, which Healy snipped, saving
you the embarrassment of running from my responses.
> The largest single category of responses by Buddy the troll was simple denial of
> the facts.
Your assumptions and opinions aren`t facts.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:51 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
> > this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
> > many questions)....
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>
> Dudster you ought to be ashamed of yourself..... you're hereby charged
> with:
>
> 17. Change the subject.
I spoke directly to the subject. Most of Ben`s "questions" are
fallacious arguments.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben has proven to be a raisin rapin wheat suckin bug fuckin organic
asshole. No wonder Healy is in love with him.
Robert Harris
<596cb6c0-7239-4d16...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
> many questions)....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>
> > This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or
> > top-posting now...)
> >
> > I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
> >
> > But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em...
> > they're
> > in no particular order:
> >
> >
> > 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK?s face
> > was
> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
>
> They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. The fact is they didn`t
> have the data to conduct that sort of testing.
>
> > 2. Why do LNT?ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the
> > head,
>
> They accept Kennedy had a wound on the back of his head. Next...
>
> > when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular
> > defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal
> > bone
> > but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this
> > region
> > there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which
> > measures
> > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the
> > Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will
> > not
> > admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by
> > dozens of
> > medical witnesses.
> >
> >
> > 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed
> > to
> > demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the
> > MC
> > was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is
> > almost funny to watch...
>
> The fallacy of this question lies in the assumption that Harris has
> developed evidence. Establish that as fact before proceeding.
ROFLMAO!!
Would you like to debate that question, Bud:-)
Or would you prefer to run, and post a lot of personal insults instead??
Surely, you are eager to defend your position - I mean, what could be
easier than a debate with someone who has no evidence:-)
Robert Harris
>
> > 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as
> > the
> > source of shots being fired?
>
> Probably because that is the direction they thought they heard the
> sound of shots from.
>
> >If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
> > claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
> > eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW?s, why didn?t anyone specify a
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article
><596cb6c0-7239-4d16...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
>> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
>> many questions)....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
This troll can't answer the questions given below - and tries to claim that it's
some sort of logical fallacy???
These are historical facts that LNT'ers simply have *NO* non-conspiratoral
answer for - yet those who accept the conspiracy can easily explain all of these
in a reasonable and understandable way.
It embarrasses the LNT'ers and Trolls - and will be repeatedly reposted several
times a year ... keep looking for it.
>> > This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or
>> > top-posting now...)
>> >
>> > I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
>> >
>> > But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em...
>> > they're in no particular order:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
>> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
>> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's
>> > face was
>> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
>>
>> They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. The fact is they didn`t
>> have the data to conduct that sort of testing.
The facts still stand. When the ballistics tests were done, shooting a bullet
into the entry location given by the autopsy report invariably exits the
forehead or face. That's a fact that's obvious to anyone with even minimal
intelligence ... ballistics training not needed.
So the troll sidesteps and ducks, but can't answer the question...
>> > 2. Why do LNT?ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back
>> > of the head,
>>
>> They accept Kennedy had a wound on the back of his head. Next...
No they don't. The BOH photo shows the entire occipital area, and the autopsy
report was quite specific, the wound "extended" into the occipital, and was
*DEVOID* of bone and scalp.
The troll is referring to the small entry wound - and he knows quite well that
I'm referring to the large wound.
Dishonest...
>> > when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular
>> > defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal
>> > bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In
>> > this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a
>> > defect which measures
>> > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the
>> > Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers
>> > will not admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report
>> > and by dozens of medical witnesses.
>> >
>> >
>> > 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has
>> > developed to demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of
>> > time shorter than the MC was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers
>> > ducking Robert's obvious example is almost funny to watch...
>>
>> The fallacy of this question lies in the assumption that Harris has
>> developed evidence. Establish that as fact before proceeding.
>
>
>ROFLMAO!!
>
>Would you like to debate that question, Bud:-)
>
>Or would you prefer to run, and post a lot of personal insults instead??
>
>Surely, you are eager to defend your position - I mean, what could be
>easier than a debate with someone who has no evidence:-)
>
>
>Robert Harris
No, the trolls are killfiled *PRECISELY* because they refuse to respond to the
evidence. Ad hominem isn't worth my time.
>> > 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the
>> > limo as the source of shots being fired?
>>
>> Probably because that is the direction they thought they heard the
>> sound of shots from.
Quite true. And unfortunately, not a very good *non* conspiratorial answer.
>> > If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
>> > claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
>> > eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW's, why didn't anyone specify a
>> > shot from the left?
>>
>> They probably indicated where they thought they heard them from.
Non-responsive to the question. Another excellent duck.
>> > 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as
>> > Automatic, changed to revolver?
>>
>> You think bullets can change type?
Sarcasm won't change the question, nor the fact that you ducked it.
>> >Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand,
>>
>> Establish that Hill had the shells in his hand when he made that
>> transmission.
Running from the facts won't change your cowardice.
>> > and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led
>> > to his radio report.
>>
>> Where did he assert that?
No thank you... You've seen this before.
>> > How could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error
>> > in the shooting of a fellow police officer?
>>
>> In what meaningful way does this statement rule out dumb error?
Ducking the question again...
>> And of course Ben the kook thinks a mistake is some amazing, never-
>> could-happen occurance, but Ben thinks dozens of DPD changing
>> evidence to frame an innocent in the murder of one their own as not
>> far fetched at all. .
>>
>> > 6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet
>> > away, and looking directly at JFK during the shooting
>>
>> The whole time?
Sarcasm... won't change the facts.
>> > (according to both his
>> > statements, and the Altgen's photo of him).
>>
>> According to his statements, he was riding the rear right fender of
>> the limo,
He also had breakfast that day.
But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second that he
was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
>> and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
>> Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
Hurts that the Altgens photo was released to the press before the FBI could get
their hands on it, doesn't it?
It shows *EXACTLY* what it shows - and is corroborated by Chaney's known
statements.
>> > We *KNOW* that his testimony would
>> > have been devastating to the SBT -
>>
>> What we know is that Chaney didn`t testify, so we have no testimony
>> to examine.
Running from his known statements is simply another act of cowardice.
>> > since we know that Chaney asserted that the
>> > bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck
>> > Connally.
>>
>> Bullets go really fast, unlikely he saw different bullets strike
>> the two men.
Denying what he asserted he saw is simply another way to demonstrate your
cowardice.
You know, I know, and any intelligent lurker knows that there really is *NO*
non-conspiratorial answer for why Chaney wasn't called to testify.
Claiming that "bullets go really fast" - and implying thereby that an eyewitness
could not differentiate two different bullet strikes a second or two apart is
just sheer nonsense.
>> > Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they
>> > say that you remember?
>> > Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that
>> > the two shots
>> > hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
>> > Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
>>> Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at
>> > that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this,
>> > and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that
>> > the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time,
>> > after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car
>> > stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
>> > Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
>> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that,
>> > Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers
>> > said it stopped completely.
>> > Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
>> > Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
>> > Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
>> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for
>> > a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
>> >
>> > Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a
>> > pattern of shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory,
>>
>> And dozens of other witnesses.
There are *NO* eyewitnesses that testify to a shot pattern different from what
Chaney reported, and favorable to the SBT.
Nor will this troll name or quote anyone.
>> >can anyone defend the
>> > Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly?
>>
>> You aren`t giving any reason to doubt their honesty. You are
>> criticizing what they did.
With reasonable cause. Demonstrating your cowardice again...
>> > Why
>> > was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the
>> > release of the WCR?
>>
>> Aren`t you asking for speculation?
I'm asking for ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF THE KNOWN FACTS that is
non-conspiratorial in nature.
The fact that you can't supply it is all that needs to be stated.
>> > 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
>> > people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
>> > dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be
>> > seen in the extant Zapruder film?
>>
>> Testing done on the z-film shows the limo did slow down.
Ducked the question again. More cowardice...
>> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo?
>>
>> There were. Next...
I specified "close-up"... you know, the same sort of photography that is
*ROUTINELY* done in murder cases.
Why bother to lie, troll?
>> > John McAdams has
>> > asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos.
Dead silence...
>> > Considering that Secret
>> > Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene
>> > procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the
>> > assassination? Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend
>> > to indicate a pre-planned action?
Dead silence...
>> > 9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has
>> > denied that this meant anything - although it's quite clear that
>> > McAdams is trying to put the
>> > best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission
>> > had no reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND
>> > PROVABLY HID EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren
>> > Commission's actions in burying the NAA data?
>>
>> Nothing here thats needs responding to, just unsupported claims.
Running again, I see...
>> For instance, Ben can produce no exculpatory evidence, yet thinks
>> saying such evidence exists should be enough.
I've discussed it often enough - you're familiar enough with the evidence to be
able to name it, yet you lie about it... why is that; Troll?
The comparative tests done by Guinn are exculpatory... you're aware of them...
yet you lie about it.
You're well aware of the fact that Weisberg was forced to go to court to force
the release of the NAA testing done at Oak Ridge - yet you're willing to lie
about it. Why is that, troll?
>> > 10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison
>> > trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what
>> > Finck was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that
>> > Garrison was
>> > 'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a
>> > *reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state
>> > prosecution?
>>
>> You`re asking for speculation, aren`t you?
Again, merely a *NON* conspiratorial explanation for known historical fact.
Ran away again, I see.
>> Thats enough for no. Doubtful Ben will ever be man enough to
>> support the claims and opinions expressed on this list of questions,
>> so there isn`t much use of knocking them all down.
As lurkers can see, most of your "answers" consisted of running away and
denials.
Which is, I suppose, the best that LNT'ers can do...
>> <SNIP>
And people wonder why you're killfiled!! :)
tomnln
******************
Burly is gonna REAM your Ass for this language Boy.
NOT
*****************
Walt
> In article <reharris1-7D6BA4.07081123012...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
> >In article
But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second
that he
was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
True.... Cheney was riding at the right rear quarter of th Lincoln
during the motorcade but he drifted back and forth as the speed of the
Lincoln varied. At the time that Altgen's napped the shutter on his
camera Chaney was directly beside the front passenger door of the
Lincoln ( slightly ahead of JFK) His peripheral vision would easily
have encompassed JFK at that time. It's an easy task to prove that
Chaney was adjacent to the right front door of the Lincoln by the
shadow being cast by his motorcycle on the ground just to the left of
the front bumper of the Lincoln.
It's possible to pinpoint Chaney's position at the time that Altgens
snapped the shutter.... The "investigators" said that Altgens snapped
the shutter coincident with frame 255 of the Z film. I don't
believe it..... because there's no motorcycle alongside the Lincoln at
Z 255.... Either the Z film is altered, or Altgen's snapped his
shutter earlier than Z255.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> In article <reharris1-7D6BA4.07081123012...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
> >In article
> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
> >> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
> >> many questions)....
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>
> This troll can't answer the questions given below - and tries to claim that it's
> some sort of logical fallacy???
>
> These are historical facts that LNT'ers simply have *NO* non-conspiratoral
> answer for - yet those who accept the conspiracy can easily explain all of these
> in a reasonable and understandable way.
They certainly do have a problem with not only FACTS but the 45
questions/16 smoking guns as well.... they need someone that's
litterate to represent/debate the WCR position. So far I've seen no
one on either board capable of doing that -- I think the dolts have
thrown in the towel, Bugliosi is just trying to make a few bucks
before his final curtain call.....
> ...
>
> read more »
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> In article <reharris1-7D6BA4.07081123012...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.n=
>et>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article
>> ><596cb6c0-7239-4d16-8326-5f893919e...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> >> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
>> >> many questions)....
>>
>>
>> This troll can't answer the questions given below - and tries to claim tha=
>t it's
>> some sort of logical fallacy???
>>
>
>> answer for - yet those who accept the conspiracy can easily explain all of=
> these
>> in a reasonable and understandable way.
>>
>veral
>> times a year ... =A0keep looking for it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? =A0(No snippin=
>g or
>> >> > top-posting now...)
>>
>> >> > I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
>>
>..
>> >> > they're in no particular order:
>>
>entry
>> >> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invar=
>iably
>> >> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's=
>
>> >> > face was
>> >> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bull=
>et?
>>
>> >> =A0 They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. The fact is they didn`t=
>
>> >> have the data to conduct that sort of testing.
>>
>bullet
>> into the entry location given by the autopsy report invariably exits the
>mal
>> intelligence ... ballistics training not needed.
>>
>> So the troll sidesteps and ducks, but can't answer the question...
>>
>> >> > 2. Why do LNT?ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back
>> >> > of the head,
>>
>
>>
>> No they don't. =A0The BOH photo shows the entire occipital area, and the a=
>utopsy
>> report was quite specific, the wound "extended" into the occipital, and wa=
>s
>> *DEVOID* of bone and scalp.
>>
>that
>> I'm referring to the large wound.
>>
>> Dishonest...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>r
>> >> > defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the pari=
>etal
>> >> > bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. =
>In
>> >> > this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a
>> >> > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" =A0There is *no* part of=
> the
>> >> > Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'er=
>s
>> >> > will not admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Rep=
>ort
>> >> > and by dozens of medical witnesses.
>>
>> >> > 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has
>> >> > developed to demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of
>> >> > time shorter than the MC was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers
>> >> > ducking Robert's obvious example is almost funny to watch...
>>
>has
>> >> developed evidence. Establish that as fact before proceeding.
>>
>> >ROFLMAO!!
>>
>> >Would you like to debate that question, Bud:-)
>>
>> >Or would you prefer to run, and post a lot of personal insults instead??
>>
>> >Surely, you are eager to defend your position - I mean, what could be
>> >easier than a debate with someone who has no evidence:-)
>>
>> >Robert Harris
>>
> the
>> evidence. =A0Ad hominem isn't worth my time.
>>
>> >> > 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the
>> >> > limo as the source of shots being fired?
>>
>he
>> >> sound of shots from.
>>
>wer.
>>
>> >> > If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
>
>> >> > eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW's, why didn't anyone speci=
>fy a
>> >> > shot from the left?
>>
>
>>
>> Non-responsive to the question. =A0Another excellent duck.
>>
>> >> > 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as=
>
>> >> > Automatic, changed to revolver?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0You think bullets can change type?
>>
>> Sarcasm won't change the question, nor the fact that you ducked it.
>>
>> >> >Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand,
>>
>
>> >> transmission.
>>
>> Running from the facts won't change your cowardice.
>>
>> >> > and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led
>> >> > to his radio report.
>>
>>
>> No thank you... You've seen this before.
>>
>> >> > in the shooting of a fellow police officer?
>>
>
>>
>> Ducking the question again...
>>
>> >> And of course Ben the kook thinks a mistake is some amazing, never-
>> >> evidence to frame an innocent in the murder of one their own as not
>> >> far fetched at all. .
>>
>et
>> >> > away, and looking directly at JFK during the shooting
>>
>>
>> Sarcasm... won't change the facts.
>>
>> >> > (according to both his
>> >> > statements, and the Altgen's photo of him).
>>
>
>> >> the limo,
>
>But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second
>that he
>was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
>
>True.... Cheney was riding at the right rear quarter of th Lincoln
>during the motorcade but he drifted back and forth as the speed of the
>Lincoln varied. At the time that Altgen's napped the shutter on his
>camera Chaney was directly beside the front passenger door of the
>Lincoln ( slightly ahead of JFK) His peripheral vision would easily
>have encompassed JFK at that time. It's an easy task to prove that
>Chaney was adjacent to the right front door of the Lincoln by the
>shadow being cast by his motorcycle on the ground just to the left of
>the front bumper of the Lincoln.
And no LNT'er has been able to get around this particular point...
>It's possible to pinpoint Chaney's position at the time that Altgens
>snapped the shutter.... The "investigators" said that Altgens snapped
>the shutter coincident with frame 255 of the Z film. I don't
>believe it..... because there's no motorcycle alongside the Lincoln at
>Z 255.... Either the Z film is altered, or Altgen's snapped his
>shutter earlier than Z255.
Yep... this does pose a problem for the LNT'er crowd... and probably why they
run from evidence like this...
>>> and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
>>> Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
>
>
>Hurts that the Altgens photo was released to the press before the FBI
>could get
>their hands on it, doesn't it?
>
>It shows *EXACTLY* what it shows - and is corroborated by Chaney's
>known
>statements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> He also had breakfast that day.
>>
>> But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second that=
> he
>> was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
>>
>> >> and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
>> >> Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
>>
>> Hurts that the Altgens photo was released to the press before the FBI coul=
>d get
>> their hands on it, doesn't it?
>>
>> It shows *EXACTLY* what it shows - and is corroborated by Chaney's known
>> statements.
>
>But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second
>that he
>was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
>
>
>
>>> and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
>>> Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
>
>
>Hurts that the Altgens photo was released to the press before the FBI
>could get
>their hands on it, doesn't it?
>
>It shows *EXACTLY* what it shows - and is corroborated by Chaney's
>known
>statements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >> > We *KNOW* that his testimony would
>> >> > have been devastating to the SBT -
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0What we know is that Chaney didn`t testify, so we have no testim=
>ony
>> >> to examine.
>>
>> Running from his known statements is simply another act of cowardice.
>>
>> >> > since we know that Chaney asserted that the
>> >> > bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck
>> >> > Connally.
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Bullets go really fast, unlikely he saw different bullets strike=
>
>> >> the two men.
>>
>> Denying what he asserted he saw is simply another way to demonstrate your
>> cowardice.
>>
>> You know, I know, and any intelligent lurker knows that there really is *N=
>O*
>> non-conspiratorial answer for why Chaney wasn't called to testify.
>>
>> Claiming that "bullets go really fast" - and implying thereby that an eyew=
>itness
>> could not differentiate two different bullet strikes a second or two apart=
> is
>> just sheer nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they
>> >> > say that you remember?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that
>> >> > the two shots
>> >> > hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
>> >> > Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
>> >>> Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and th=
>en at
>> >> > that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this,
>> >> > and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that
>> >> > the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time=
>,
>> >> > after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car
>> >> > stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
>> >> > Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that,
>> >> > Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officer=
>s
>> >> > said it stopped completely.
>> >> > Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
>> >> > Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for
>> >> > a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
>>
>> >> > Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a
>> >> > pattern of shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory,
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0And dozens of other witnesses.
>>
>> There are *NO* eyewitnesses that testify to a shot pattern different from =
>what
>> Chaney reported, and favorable to the SBT.
>>
>> Nor will this troll name or quote anyone.
>>
>> >> >can anyone defend the
>> >> > Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney direc=
>tly?
>>
>> >> =A0 You aren`t giving any reason to doubt their honesty. You are
>> >> criticizing what they did.
>>
>> With reasonable cause. =A0Demonstrating your cowardice again...
>>
>> >> > =A0Why
>> >> > was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the
>> >> > release of the WCR?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Aren`t you asking for speculation?
>>
>> I'm asking for ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF THE KNOWN FACTS that is
>> non-conspiratorial in nature.
>>
>> The fact that you can't supply it is all that needs to be stated.
>>
>> >> > 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
>> >> > people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
>> >> > dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. =A0Why can't thi=
>s be
>> >> > seen in the extant Zapruder film?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0Testing done on the z-film shows the limo did slow down.
>>
>> Ducked the question again. =A0More cowardice...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...>> In article <reharris1-7D6BA4.07081123012...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.n=
>et>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article
>> ><596cb6c0-7239-4d16-8326-5f893919e...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> >> Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
>> >> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
>> >> many questions)....
>>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>>
>t it's
>> some sort of logical fallacy???
>>
>
>> answer for - yet those who accept the conspiracy can easily explain all of=
> these
>> in a reasonable and understandable way.
>
>They certainly do have a problem with not only FACTS but the 45
>questions/16 smoking guns as well.... they need someone that's
>litterate to represent/debate the WCR position. So far I've seen no
>one on either board capable of doing that -- I think the dolts have
>thrown in the towel, Bugliosi is just trying to make a few bucks
>before his final curtain call.....
Yep... while it would certainly be unreasonable to expect Bugliosi to have
answered these 45 questions in his tome - he knew about, and FAILED to answer
the 16 Smoking Guns.
And that tells the tale.
>> It embarrasses the LNT'ers and Trolls - and will be repeatedly reposted se=
>veral
>> times a year ... keep looking for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping =
>or
>> >> > top-posting now...)
>>
>> >> > I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
>>
>> >> > But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em.=
>..
>> >> > they're in no particular order:
>>
>> >> > 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the =
>entry
>> >> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invar=
>iably
>> >> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's=
>
>> >> > face was
>> >> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bull=
>et?
>>
>> >> They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. The fact is they didn`t
>> >> have the data to conduct that sort of testing.
>>
>> The facts still stand. When the ballistics tests were done, shooting a bu=
>llet
>> into the entry location given by the autopsy report invariably exits the
>> forehead or face. That's a fact that's obvious to anyone with even minima=
>l
>> intelligence ... ballistics training not needed.
>>
>> So the troll sidesteps and ducks, but can't answer the question...
>>
>> >> > 2. Why do LNT?ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back
>> >> > of the head,
>>
>> >> They accept Kennedy had a wound on the back of his head. Next...
>>
>> No they don't. The BOH photo shows the entire occipital area, and the aut=
>opsy
>> report was quite specific, the wound "extended" into the occipital, and wa=
>s
>> *DEVOID* of bone and scalp.
>>
>> The troll is referring to the small entry wound - and he knows quite well =
>that
>> I'm referring to the large wound.
>>
>> Dishonest...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregula=
>r
>> >> > defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the pari=
>etal
>> >> > bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. =
>In
>> >> > this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a
>> >> > defect which measures
>> >> > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of t=
>he
>> >> > Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'er=
>s
>> >> > will not admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Rep=
>ort
>> >> > and by dozens of medical witnesses.
>>
>> >> > 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has
>> >> > developed to demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of
>> >> > time shorter than the MC was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers
>> >> > ducking Robert's obvious example is almost funny to watch...
>>
>> >> The fallacy of this question lies in the assumption that Harris has
>> >> developed evidence. Establish that as fact before proceeding.
>>
>> >ROFLMAO!!
>>
>> >Would you like to debate that question, Bud:-)
>>
>> >Or would you prefer to run, and post a lot of personal insults instead??
>>
>> >Surely, you are eager to defend your position - I mean, what could be
>> >easier than a debate with someone who has no evidence:-)
>>
>> >Robert Harris
>>
>> No, the trolls are killfiled *PRECISELY* because they refuse to respond to=
> the
>> evidence. Ad hominem isn't worth my time.
>>
>> >> > 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the
>> >> > limo as the source of shots being fired?
>>
>> >> Probably because that is the direction they thought they heard the
>> >> sound of shots from.
>>
>> Quite true. And unfortunately, not a very good *non* conspiratorial answe=
>r.
>>
>> >> > If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
>> >> > claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many=
>
>> >> > eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW's, why didn't anyone speci=
>fy a
>> >> > shot from the left?
>>
>> >> They probably indicated where they thought they heard them from.
>>
>> Non-responsive to the question. Another excellent duck.
>>
>> >> > 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as=
>
>> >> > Automatic, changed to revolver?
>>
>> >> You think bullets can change type?
>>
>> Sarcasm won't change the question, nor the fact that you ducked it.
>>
>> >> >Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand,
>>
>> >> Establish that Hill had the shells in his hand when he made that
>> >> transmission.
>>
>> Running from the facts won't change your cowardice.
>>
>> >> > and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led
>> >> > to his radio report.
>>
>> >> Where did he assert that?
>>
>> No thank you... You've seen this before.
>>
>> >> > How could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error
>> >> > in the shooting of a fellow police officer?
>>
>> >> In what meaningful way does this statement rule out dumb error?
>>
>> Ducking the question again...
>>
>> >> And of course Ben the kook thinks a mistake is some amazing, never-
>> >> could-happen occurance, but Ben thinks dozens of DPD changing
>> >> evidence to frame an innocent in the murder of one their own as not
>> >> far fetched at all. .
>>
>> >> > 6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen fe=
>et
>> >> > away, and looking directly at JFK during the shooting
>>
>> >> The whole time?
>>
>> Sarcasm... won't change the facts.
>>
>> >> > (according to both his
>> >> > statements, and the Altgen's photo of him).
>>
>> >> According to his statements, he was riding the rear right fender of
>> >> the limo,
>>
>> He also had breakfast that day.
>>
>> But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second that=
> he
>> was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
>>
>> >> and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
>> >> Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
>>
>> Hurts that the Altgens photo was released to the press before the FBI coul=
>d get
>> their hands on it, doesn't it?
>>
>> It shows *EXACTLY* what it shows - and is corroborated by Chaney's known
>> statements.
>>
>> >> > We *KNOW* that his testimony would
>> >> > have been devastating to the SBT -
>>
>> >> What we know is that Chaney didn`t testify, so we have no testimony
>> >> to examine.
>>
>> Running from his known statements is simply another act of cowardice.
>>
>> >> > since we know that Chaney asserted that the
>> >> > bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck
>> >> > Connally.
>>
>> >> Bullets go really fast, unlikely he saw different bullets strike
>> >> the two men.
>>
>> Denying what he asserted he saw is simply another way to demonstrate your
>> cowardice.
>>
>> You know, I know, and any intelligent lurker knows that there really is *N=
>O*
>> non-conspiratorial answer for why Chaney wasn't called to testify.
>>
>> Claiming that "bullets go really fast" - and implying thereby that an eyew=
>itness
>> could not differentiate two different bullet strikes a second or two apart=
> is
>> just sheer nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they
>> >> > say that you remember?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that
>> >> > the two shots
>> >> > hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
>> >> > Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
>> >>> Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and th=
>en at
>> >> > that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this,
>> >> > and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that
>> >> > the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time=
>,
>> >> > after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car
>> >> > stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
>> >> > Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that,
>> >> > Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officer=
>s
>> >> > said it stopped completely.
>> >> > Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
>> >> > Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
>> >> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for
>> >> > a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
>>
>> >> > Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a
>> >> > pattern of shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory,
>>
>> >> And dozens of other witnesses.
>>
>> There are *NO* eyewitnesses that testify to a shot pattern different from =
>what
>> Chaney reported, and favorable to the SBT.
>>
>> Nor will this troll name or quote anyone.
>>
>> >> >can anyone defend the
>> >> > Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney direc=
>tly?
>>
>> >> You aren`t giving any reason to doubt their honesty. You are
>> >> criticizing what they did.
>>
>> With reasonable cause. Demonstrating your cowardice again...
>>
>> >> > Why
>> >> > was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the
>> >> > release of the WCR?
>>
>> >> Aren`t you asking for speculation?
>>
>> I'm asking for ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF THE KNOWN FACTS that is
>> non-conspiratorial in nature.
>>
>> The fact that you can't supply it is all that needs to be stated.
>>
>> >> > 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
>> >> > people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
>> >> > dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this =
>be
>> >> > seen in the extant Zapruder film?
>>
>> >> Testing done on the z-film shows the limo did slow down.
>>
>> Ducked the question again. More cowardice...
>>
>> >> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi...knew about and FAILED to answer the 16 Smoking Guns." <<<
Total bullshit, of course. And Ben The Kook knows it's bullshit. But
that won't stop Benji from repeating it time and time again. .....
================================================
================================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e77756f1dff25f3e
"James Fetzer...wrote me on January 23, 2001:...[Quoting
Fetzer:] "What would it take to convince you of the existence of a
conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? .... Are none of our
[Fetzer's and Dr. David Mantik's] major discoveries--our '16 smoking
guns,' for example--convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, then
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?" [End Fetzer quote.]
"Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." --
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE #974 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
www.amazon.com/review/R2R0RQ0Q9AZY0M
==============================================
BEN HOLMES SAID THIS ON AUGUST 22, 2007:
>>> "DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't. Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to* cite." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6d550fa4cb5c8792
AND KOOK HOLMES SAID THIS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2007:
>>> "Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a45aaa342d10998
DVP SAID THIS ON AUGUST 19, 2007:
>>> "Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items. They are all answered very well in various places throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb
==============================================
The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):
www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
==============================================
Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY". (Book title hereafter in
this post shortened to "RH".)
Here now are some citations and excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book
which directly deal with the above-linked "Smoking Guns"....which are
"Guns" that a Super-Kook named Holmes insists that "Bugliosi did NOT
address" anywhere in "RH":
======================
SMOKING GUN #1:
"[Per the WC and the HSCA] JFK was hit at the base of the back
of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any
bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie. [This]
is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to
impact bony structures."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The bruises in the neck region [of JFK]...COULDN'T have been
caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body
was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no
bruise--that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not
discoloration of the tissue.
"The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung HAD to have
been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating
sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur. [Source Note #132 = Dr.
Humes' WC testimony @ 2 H 368.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm
"In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
TO THE INCISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL (i.e., they had
to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE
PRESIDENT'S BACK AND EXITING THE THROAT. [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]
"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
in the front of the president's neck. ....
"This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
#134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0117b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0118a.htm
~~~~~~
"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.
"The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm
"The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).
"Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-
ROM)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0154b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #2:
"The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 500
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0024a.htm
~~~~~~
"Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #3:
"The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
have fired the bullets that killed the president."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
Murder Weapon".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815
======================
SMOKING GUN #4:
"The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
have used, thereby exonerating him."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons." [End Petty quote.]
"In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
of JFK's head]. ....
"Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0203a.htm
"Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0182b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #5:
"The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
area of the right temple."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 863
======================
SMOKING GUN #6:
"The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40
eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden:] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 407-408
~~~~~~
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president.
"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.
"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"On the Ida Dox drawing of the autopsy photograph of the back of
the president's head showing the entrance wound (see 7 HSCA 104), the
numbers on the ruler are not visible, even with a magnifying glass,
but the entrance wound does not seem to be four inches above where I
would imagine the external occipital protuberance was on the
president's head, and does not appear as high up as the round black
circle signifying the entrance wound on the HSCA sketch (see 1 HSCA
406).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0205b.htm
"It may be that the location of the entrance wound was somewhere
between where the autopsy surgeons and the later pathologists said it
was. But if, indeed, the autopsy surgeons were correct on the lower
location of the head entrance wound, how this would affect the
trajectory analyses, and be compatible with the minute missile
fragments traversing on a line from back to front higher up on the
head, is beyond my knowledge and expertise.
"However, we mustn't forget that since the president's head was
inclined slightly forward at the time of the head shot, a bullet
traveling on a downward trajectory would be proceeding on a higher
path, anatomically, through the president's head. (See discussion on
this issue in main text with respect to the president's back wound.)"
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 231 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #7:
"These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."
"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #8:
"Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of
the brain of someone other than JFK."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Gun" is yet another incredibly-stupid one,
with absolutely zero granules of truth in it whatsoever, and is a
theory that should make anyone purporting it turn various shades of
crimson due to the embarrassment at having even written it down.
Mr. Bugliosi handily and humorously (and with ample citations to
testimony from Humes, Boswell, Finck, and other sources), deals with
the "Two Brains" idiocy on pages 434 to 447 of the main text in "RH";
and pages 282 to 287 of the CD's endnotes. A few excerpts follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever
promulgated in the assassination debate, and yet one whose contention
is being hailed and widely accepted today in the conspiracy community,
is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for
military records. ....
"Unbelievably, Horne said that the depositions taken by the ARRB
caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from
some anonymous third party. ....
"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain?
"Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true
facts of the assassination. ....
"Horne does his best to protect his credibility on his
memorandum by burying in a footnote near the very end of it some
information that severely damages the credibility of his star witness,
autopsy photographer John Stringer. (But it's too late. There is
nothing that can possibly restore the credibility of Doug Horne for
the main conclusions he sets forth in the body of his memorandum.)" --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 434-435, 439, and 441
======================
SMOKING GUN #9:
"Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that
parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or
destroyed."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS (with many more conspiracy-smashing cites
concerning this sub-topic to be found on pages 260-280 of the CD's
endnotes):
"What does Doug Horne conclude from all of this? For Horne, the
implications are staggering. If the navy was correct in saying that
the camera it provided "was indeed the camera used at the
autopsy" (the navy only said the camera was "believed to be" the
autopsy camera), then either, he says, (1) all the autopsy photographs
are authentic and were indeed taken by John Stringer, and a benign but
unknown explanation exists for why the HSCA photographic experts
believed the autopsy photographs could not have been taken by the navy
camera they examined (e.g., the lens of the camera used to take the
photographs was different from the 135-millimeter Zeiss Jena Tessar
lens supplied by the navy)...
"...or (2) many or all of the autopsy photographs were taken by
a photographer other than John Stringer, and the photographs Stringer
said he took were removed from the official autopsy photographic
collection (Doug Horne's memorandum for file, pp.5-6).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm
"This second possibility is apparently meant to conjure up
images of a mysterious, unknown photographer shooting a second set of
autopsy photographs after the autopsy was completed (a set of images
that presumably concealed the true nature of the president's wounds),
which were then substituted for the official set of photographs taken
by Stringer.
"Horne's memo suggests that the latter is true (i.e., the
autopsy photographs are substitutes, taken by someone other than
Stringer). But this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.
"We know through stereoscopic analysis that the photographs in
evidence (even if they are substitute photographs of the autopsy taken
by someone other than Stringer) are authentic and unaltered. We also
know from the HSCA anthropologists and the odontologist that the skull
is that of John F. Kennedy.
"What this all means is that irrespective of the camera and
lens, whatever the photographs show must be the true condition of the
president's body at the time of the autopsy. Since the photographs
clearly show that the president was struck from behind by two bullets,
what possible purpose could be served by substituting or removing
photographs? Neither Horne nor [Gary] Aguilar say.
"The authentication of the existing photographic collection
eliminates the possibility that any photographs that might have
disappeared from the collection, either by removal or by substitution,
could show anything other than what we now see.
"After all, there was only one body and the wounds in that body
either show that shots were fired from the front or they don't, no
matter how many photographs are substituted or removed. Surprisingly,
this obvious fact seems to have escaped the conspiracy theorists." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 226-227 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"There are several other tales of photographs allegedly taken
during the autopsy that critics claim have since vanished, but I
should emphasize that even if these alleged missing photographs exist
somewhere (or did exist at one time), they can't possibly show
something that contradicts what we already know to be true about the
president's wounds.
"How do we know this? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that
the autopsy photographs and X-rays that are available are authentic
and unaltered and depict the condition of President Kennedy's body on
the night of the autopsy. So, any additional photographs or X-rays
that might exist (or might have existed) can't depict something else.
"Therefore, when someone comes forward with a story about
photographs that supposedly showed something other than what we know
to be true (i.e., the president was struck from behind by two shots),
we know, of necessity, that the person telling the story is either
honestly mistaken or deliberately lying. One hundred or one thousand
sworn testimonies about missing photographs would not change this
unshakable truth.
"One of these other tales that critics are convinced is evidence
of a completely different (and unusual) set of autopsy photographs was
told by Saundra Spencer, an E-6 photographer's mate first class who
was in charge of the White House photo lab, a small room located
inside the three-story facilities of the Naval Photographic Center
(NPC) at Anacostia, Maryland, across the river from Washington,
D.C. ....
"Spencer said that none of the photos showed the scalp peeled
back on the skull. Also, unlike the photographs in the National
Archives inventory today, Spencer said that the president's eyes and
mouth were closed and that he appeared to be in "a rest position."
Spencer said that other than the wound to the back of the president's
head, she saw no other wound to the head. "The prints that we printed
did not have the massive head damages" shown in the official autopsy
photos. ....
"Spencer's testimony, of course, has raised the question in the
conspiracy community of whether there was a second set of photographs
taken of Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy (a set conspiracy
theorists presume showed the "true" nature of the president's wounds)
and that this second set was squirreled away as part of the cover-
up. ....
"But was Spencer's testimony accurate? For starters, keep in
mind that Spencer's recollection of events was thirty-four years after
the fact. But more importantly, her recollection is at odds with
almost the entire official record. While the official autopsy
photographs were processed, as Spencer remembered, at the NPC, the
rest of the documentary record details a completely different and
rather divergent series of events which, I think you'll agree, is
quite unlike Spencer's account. ....
"In this case, like many others where eyewitnesses are
confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra
Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when
she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center
of the back of the president's head.
"Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy
surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively,
and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time
of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described. ....
"[Robert L.] Knudsen's version of events has been tarnished as
well. .... In May 1996, Gloria Knudsen, widow of Knudsen, and two of
his four surviving children were interviewed by the ARRB. .... They
said that Robert Knudsen told them sometime after the assassination
that he alone had photographed the autopsy.
"Knudsen also told them that he witnessed and photographed
probes inserted in the president's body, and that the Secret Service
took his film as soon as he had exposed it. (ARRB MD 230, Meeting
Report, Interview of Gloria Knudsen and children Terri and Bob, May
13, 1996, p.1)" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 263-266, 268, and 272 of
Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md230/html/md230_0004a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #10:
"The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques."
[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts
below.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....
"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507
~~~~~~
"Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....
"As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
when the alteration supposedly took place. ....
"One exception among the steadily increasing number of
alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).
"But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of
Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #11:
"The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."
[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":
Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.
Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.
Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
question? ....
"[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
======================
SMOKING GUN #12:
"The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
eyewitness reports."
[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.
Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
too, for that matter.]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #13:
"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."
[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
conspiracy myth is anyone's guess. But, it is indeed difficult at
times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy
theorist.] .....
WAS THE MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,
the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H
614). ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0322b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0323a.htm
"However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmnmap2.gif
======================
SMOKING GUN #14:
"Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
about them.
"Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
was deficient in the performance of its duties."
"Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
Page 1245
======================
SMOKING GUN #15:
"Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
committed the crime."
[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
"Smokers" list.
But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
debunking VB quotes follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....
"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
missing. ....
"[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275
~~~~~~
"No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238
~~~~~~
"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195
~~~~~~
"Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.
"What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242
======================
SMOKING GUN #16:
"Many individuals knew details about the assassination before
and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more [than] a
patsy."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The more Joseph Milteer talked, the more it became obvious that
before the assassination, he knew as much about what was going to
happen as you or I (though William Somersett tended to believe that
Milteer had foreknowledge, not believing Milteer would be able to
guess that Kennedy would be shot with a rifle from a window).
"Milteer now, after the assassination, wanted to lead Somersett
to believe that he was part of the group that was behind it. He said
he was connected to a group Somersett had never heard of, the
International Underground, an organization, he said, of American
patriots, and this group had infiltrated Oswald's pro-Castro group in
New Orleans. (By now Milteer had undoubtedly already heard over the
news that Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans. What no one knew at this point, including Milteer, was
that that committee, or group, only had one member, Oswald, so
Milteer's organization could not have infiltrated a group that did not
exist.) ....
"When Milteer and Somersett met the following day, Sunday, with
the four members of the Ku Klux Klan...he also told them about his
group being behind the assassination. ....
"Somersett was of the opinion that the four Klansmen had never
met Milteer before and met with him because he had asked for the
meeting. So here we have Milteer confessing to being part of the
conspiracy to murder Kennedy not only to his friend Somersett, but
also to four virtual strangers.
"Somersett didn't say whether or not he heard Milteer confess to
the waiter at the restaurant." [~LOL Break~] -- V. Bugliosi; 724-725
of Endnotes
[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
Advance" theory.
Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
those individuals have been implicated in.
==============================================
FINAL "SMOKING GUNS" ANALYSIS:
When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.
In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.
==============================================
aeffects
> >>> "Bugliosi...knew about and FAILED to answer the 16 Smoking Guns." <<<
>
> Total bullshit, of course. And Ben The Kook knows it's bullshit. But
> that won't stop Benji from repeating it time and time again. .....
evidently the nonsense below isn't cutting it, Dave ole Chap!
Kinda like the WCR... round and round ya go where you stop NOBODY
knows.... now if you have something tangible, Dave spit it out -
please.... better yet, have your icon stop by and show us his
stuff.... he doesn't think potential book purchasers should be treated
with that caviler of all attitudes, why spread pearls before the
swine, eh, Davey ole Chap?
Dave your the old story, you run the good race, time for you to bring
in the varsity (or perceived varsity), move over
Dave, we're done with you.....
David Von Pein
>>> "If you have something tangible, Dave, spit it out--please..." <<<
LOL.
>>> "Dave, your [sic; as per the Healy norm] the old story. You run [sic] the good race. Time for you to bring in the varsity (or perceived varsity). Move over Dave, we're done with you." <<<
LOL.
(At this late stage in the dreaded CT disease, I doubt even a team of
the best psychiatrists could help Mr. Healy. A pity.)
(He could use a lesson in punctuation too. The usual Healy-like errors
corrected by DVP above.)
aeffects
it appears you'll do better with Ben Holmes post directly above --
carry on Nutter, please, try and enlist a little confidence, it's
time to throw the towel in Dave!
Bud
I you liked that one, I got a million of them.
> Would you like to debate that question, Bud:-)
<snicker> You want me to dissuade you of ideas you like, and get you
to accept ideas you don`t like? To what end, Bob?
> Or would you prefer to run,
I prefer not to run in circles following kooks.
> and post a lot of personal insults instead??
I like to mix it up. Jerkoff.
> Surely, you are eager to defend your position -
My position has been on the table for decades. That people are
willing to attack the WC`s findings is meaningless, criticism and
second-guessing is easy.
> I mean, what could be
> easier than a debate with someone who has no evidence:-)
That isn`t what I said. Ben wrote that you developed evidence that
demonstrates that two shots were fired faster than the MC could be
fired. You haven`t, regardless of whether you and Ben are convinced
you have.
But, if you are willing to hold a civil conversation without
resorting to a bunch of insults, I am mildly interested in hearing
your shot sequencing, how many shots, fired when, that kind of thing.
Not interested enough to wade through your website, mind you.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jan 23, 12:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Bugliosi...knew about and FAILED to answer the 16 Smoking Guns." <<<
>>
>> Total bullshit, of course. And Ben The Kook knows it's bullshit.
Unfortunately for your spin, simply not true.
I took apart your claims, point by point. There were several items that
Bugliosi didn't deal with, even in the most abstract.
But even on issues he *did* discuss - he avoided the real facts and evidence.
Trolls lie, that's what trolls do...
>> But that won't stop Benji from repeating it time and time again. .....
>
>evidently the nonsense below isn't cutting it, Dave ole Chap!
>
>Kinda like the WCR... round and round ya go where you stop NOBODY
>knows.... now if you have something tangible, Dave spit it out -
He did... I destroyed it, point by point.
>please.... better yet, have your icon stop by and show us his
>stuff.... he doesn't think potential book purchasers should be treated
>with that caviler of all attitudes, why spread pearls before the
>swine, eh, Davey ole Chap?
>
>Dave your the old story, you run the good race, time for you to bring
>in the varsity (or perceived varsity), move over
>Dave, we're done with you.....
Even though Bugliosi didn't know of my 45 Questions - he clearly knew the same
evidence that I did - and a reasonable person would figure out
non-conspiratorial explanations for the issues I raise with the 45 Questions.
DVP can't do it, Bugliosi couldn't do it.
David Von Pein
>>> "Unfortunately for your spin, simply not true. I took apart your claims, point by point. There were several items that Bugliosi didn't deal with, even in the most abstract." <<<
Translation --- Vincent Bugliosi didn't provide answers to meet the
the kook's (Ben's) requirements....therefore, per the kook, the "16
Guns" were not dealt with AT ALL by VB in "RH".
That's called being a kook. And Ben applies (easily).
>>> "But even on issues he {VB} *did* discuss - he avoided the real facts and evidence." <<<
For some silly reason all his own, Ben thinks that he possesses "real
facts and evidence" that Bugliosi doesn't have (or doesn't address).
But, Benji, as Bud has pointed out to this motley aggregation of kooks
on this forum on more than one occasion, your opinions and theories
aren't "facts" and they aren't "evidence".
That you think they are these things is meaningless. Face it.
>>> "Trolls lie, that's what trolls do." <<<
Ben mangles and misrepresents the actual facts and evidence. That's
what mega-kooks do.
(Okay, Healy, quick! Get in here with another of your patented say-
nothing posts that manages to make all English teachers cringe, so
that your Master can see another post from a "killfiled" opponent.
Ten-
four?)
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <reharris1-7D6BA...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
> >
> >In article
> ><596cb6c0-7239-4d16...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >> Note: Fans of fallacies can find most of the fallcies listed at
> >> this link represented Ben`s questions (particularily "the fallacy of
> >> many questions)....
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>
>
> This troll can't answer the questions given below - and tries to claim that it's
> some sort of logical fallacy???
Certainly. Read the link I gave, it explains them.
> These are historical facts
Mostly just assumptions and opinions. You assert a lot of things to
be what they are not.
>that LNT'ers simply have *NO* non-conspiratoral
> answer for - yet those who accept the conspiracy can easily explain all of these
> in a reasonable and understandable way.
>
> It embarrasses the LNT'ers and Trolls - and will be repeatedly reposted several
> times a year ... keep looking for it.
I`m not going anywhere.
> >> > This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or
> >> > top-posting now...)
> >> >
> >> > I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
> >> >
> >> > But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em...
> >> > they're in no particular order:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
> >> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
> >> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's
> >> > face was
> >> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
> >>
> >> They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. The fact is they didn`t
> >> have the data to conduct that sort of testing.
>
>
> The facts still stand.
Yah, I gave them. They weren`t conducting trajectory testing. Did
they have the skull fired at positioned at the correct angle as JFK`
when he was shot. Did that even have that information when Oliver did
his testing? He said he did not.
> When the ballistics tests were done, shooting a bullet
> into the entry location given by the autopsy report invariably exits the
> forehead or face. That's a fact that's obvious to anyone with even minimal
> intelligence ... ballistics training not needed.
>
> So the troll sidesteps and ducks, but can't answer the question...
You are demanding trajectory results from testing that wasn`t
trajectory testing, it`s as simple as that. It was testing to
determine what effect an MC round had on the skull, and the effect a
skull had on an MC round. Where a bullet exits when fired into a skull
depends on a few factors, none of which they had the data at the time
to replicate (angle Kennedy`s skull was when struck, curvature and
pitch of the street, ect)..
> >> > 2. Why do LNT?ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back
> >> > of the head,
> >>
> >> They accept Kennedy had a wound on the back of his head. Next...
>
>
> No they don't.
Produce one LN who doesn`t feel JFK was shot in the back of his
head or retract your lie.
You made a claim. Harris agree with your claim. What could matter
less?
> >> > 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the
> >> > limo as the source of shots being fired?
> >>
> >> Probably because that is the direction they thought they heard the
> >> sound of shots from.
>
>
> Quite true. And unfortunately, not a very good *non* conspiratorial answer.
I expect the witnesses truthfully gave their impressions about where
the shots came from. It`s just junk information, is all.
> >> > If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
> >> > claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
> >> > eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW's, why didn't anyone specify a
> >> > shot from the left?
> >>
> >> They probably indicated where they thought they heard them from.
>
>
> Non-responsive to the question. Another excellent duck.
<snicker> You asked why they didn`t indicate the left. My answer is
that their impressions were probably that the shot came from the
right, not the left. Where to now, Ben?
> >> > 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as
> >> > Automatic, changed to revolver?
> >>
> >> You think bullets can change type?
>
>
> Sarcasm won't change the question, nor the fact that you ducked it.
You claimed the bullets changed type. I suspect that is impossible,
and a better answer needs to be devised.
> >> >Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand,
> >>
> >> Establish that Hill had the shells in his hand when he made that
> >> transmission.
>
>
> Running from the facts won't change your cowardice.
You made a claim, that Hill was holding the shells when he made the
transmission identifying the shells as automatic. I know you can`t
establish that statement as true, so why would I proceed as if it were
true?
> >> > and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led
> >> > to his radio report.
> >>
> >> Where did he assert that?
>
>
> No thank you... You've seen this before.
Have I? It`s possible, but I can`t recall ever seeing Hill make
that admission. I`m sure the lurkers would like to see you support
what you said, just to see it for once.
> >> > How could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error
> >> > in the shooting of a fellow police officer?
> >>
> >> In what meaningful way does this statement rule out dumb error?
>
>
> Ducking the question again...
Addressing what you said. Are you really asking how a human being
could make a mistake? You do know that NASA drove a probe into the
surface of Mars because they miscalculated the distance, right? If a
blunder of this magnitude is possible, I imagine lesser ones are
possible also.
> >> And of course Ben the kook thinks a mistake is some amazing, never-
> >> could-happen occurance, but Ben thinks dozens of DPD changing
> >> evidence to frame an innocent in the murder of one their own as not
> >> far fetched at all. .
> >>
> >> > 6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet
> >> > away, and looking directly at JFK during the shooting
> >>
> >> The whole time?
>
>
> Sarcasm... won't change the facts.
<snicker> It wasn`t sarcasm, jackass. From the first to last shots
is what, 8 seconds? So, to say Chaney was looking at JFK during the
attack implies he rode also the whole distance on Elm with his
attention fixed on JFK. Is that the case, or were you just being
purposely misleading when you said he was looking at Kennedy during
the shooting?
> >> > (according to both his
> >> > statements, and the Altgen's photo of him).
> >>
> >> According to his statements, he was riding the rear right fender of
> >> the limo,
>
> He also had breakfast that day.
But his statement about were he was at is pertinent to the
discussion.
> But during the timeframe of the shooting, and during the split second that he
> was PHOTOGRAPHED - he was in the location shown.
No doubt that he was in the location shown. The dispute lies in
where that location actually was.
> >> and Algens does not establish Chaney as being up along side
> >> Kenneddy when that photo was taken.
>
>
> Hurts that the Altgens photo was released to the press before the FBI could get
> their hands on it, doesn't it?
Does it hurt to be insane?
> It shows *EXACTLY* what it shows -
No doubt.
>and is corroborated by Chaney's known
> statements.
The one where he said he was riding the rear fender of the limo?
> >> > We *KNOW* that his testimony would
> >> > have been devastating to the SBT -
> >>
> >> What we know is that Chaney didn`t testify, so we have no testimony
> >> to examine.
>
>
> Running from his known statements is simply another act of cowardice.
Referring to testimony of a person who never testified is just
plain stupid.
> >> > since we know that Chaney asserted that the
> >> > bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck
> >> > Connally.
> >>
> >> Bullets go really fast, unlikely he saw different bullets strike
> >> the two men.
>
>
> Denying what he asserted he saw is simply another way to demonstrate your
> cowardice.
I didn`t deny what he asserted, idjit. I noted the unlikelyhood
of him seeing bullets in flight. W#hat he asserted was that Kennedy
was struck in the face. He wasn`t. He also asserted Connally w3as
struck after Kennedy was headshot. Do you have anyone to corroborate
that shooting sequence?
> You know, I know, and any intelligent lurker knows that there really is *NO*
> non-conspiratorial answer for why Chaney wasn't called to testify.
Merely opinion.
> Claiming that "bullets go really fast" - and implying thereby that an eyewitness
> could not differentiate two different bullet strikes a second or two apart is
> just sheer nonsense.
The concept is that just because a witness sees blood doesn`t mean
that is when the victim was struck with a bullet, only that the
observer first noted the blood at this point in time. Add in that the
person is observing from another vehicle, it was a split second (well,
a little longer) surprise attack, and this witness gave information
that is known to be erroneous, and we have the usual serving up of
mush as concrete from a kook.
If you aren`t going to address what I wrote, why respond at all?
> Nor will this troll name or quote anyone.
I doubt you could name one other witness who corroborates Chaney`s
shot sequencing.
> >> >can anyone defend the
> >> > Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly?
> >>
> >> You aren`t giving any reason to doubt their honesty. You are
> >> criticizing what they did.
>
>
> With reasonable cause.
Then you are merely a critic. Had the investigation ran to your
specifications, it still could be subjected to criticism.
> Demonstrating your cowardice again...
Showing that you are merely voicing your opinion once more.
> >> > Why
> >> > was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the
> >> > release of the WCR?
> >>
> >> Aren`t you asking for speculation?
>
>
> I'm asking for ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF THE KNOWN FACTS that is
> non-conspiratorial in nature.
Did the WC make known their motivations for not calling Chaney to
testify? If they didn`t, the only thing left to do is speculate.
> The fact that you can't supply it is all that needs to be stated.
I can speculate all you like. So can you, I see.
> >> > 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
> >> > people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
> >> > dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be
> >> > seen in the extant Zapruder film?
> >>
> >> Testing done on the z-film shows the limo did slow down.
>
>
> Ducked the question again. More cowardice...
You are asking why people viewing the z-film can`t detect the slow
down that testing of the film establishes? People on the scene can pan
their heads to their own satisfaction, viewers of the z-film are stuck
with Zapruder`s whims of camera movement.
> >> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo?
> >>
> >> There were. Next...
>
>
> I specified "close-up"... you know,
I lost my "Asshole to English" dictionary, so I wasn`t sure how you
were using the word.
This photo seems pretty close up to me....
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Limousine/blood01.jpg
> the same sort of photography that is
> *ROUTINELY* done in murder cases.
>
> Why bother to lie, troll?
I suppose you could support your claims with photographs taken by
the FBI circa 1963 of the type you imagine, or you can just *say* it,
which is probably good enough for some people.
> >> > John McAdams has
> >> > asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos.
>
>
> Dead silence...
Perhaps you should post some photos of crime scences taken in the
`60s by the FBI, so we can all see how the photos in this case differ.
> >> > Considering that Secret
> >> > Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene
> >> > procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the
> >> > assassination? Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend
> >> > to indicate a pre-planned action?
>
>
> Dead silence...
You`re asking me why this seems like a pre-planned action to you?
If it was pre-planned, why did they have to ask others for cleaning
supplies?
> >> > 9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has
> >> > denied that this meant anything - although it's quite clear that
> >> > McAdams is trying to put the
> >> > best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission
> >> > had no reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND
> >> > PROVABLY HID EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren
> >> > Commission's actions in burying the NAA data?
> >>
> >> Nothing here thats needs responding to, just unsupported claims.
>
>
> Running again, I see...
You won`t put up, and you won`t shut up. Thats ok, this way is
fine.
> >> For instance, Ben can produce no exculpatory evidence, yet thinks
> >> saying such evidence exists should be enough.
>
>
> I've discussed it often enough - you're familiar enough with the evidence to be
> able to name it, yet you lie about it... why is that; Troll?
I spoke the truth, and you offered nothing to dispute it... why is
that, kook? Is it because you can`t produce this evidence you claim is
exculpatory?
> The comparative tests done by Guinn are exculpatory... you're aware of them...
> yet you lie about it.
What specifically are you referring to?
> You're well aware of the fact that Weisberg was forced to go to court to force
> the release of the NAA testing done at Oak Ridge - yet you're willing to lie
> about it. Why is that, troll?
The best way to show that information supports your position is to
produce it.
> >> > 10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison
> >> > trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what
> >> > Finck was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that
> >> > Garrison was
> >> > 'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a
> >> > *reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state
> >> > prosecution?
> >>
> >> You`re asking for speculation, aren`t you?
>
>
> Again, merely a *NON* conspiratorial explanation for known historical fact.
>
> Ran away again, I see.
You`re asking for the motivations of unnamed people. You are asking
for speculation.
> >> Thats enough for no. Doubtful Ben will ever be man enough to
> >> support the claims and opinions expressed on this list of questions,
> >> so there isn`t much use of knocking them all down.
>
>
> As lurkers can see, most of your "answers" consisted of running away and
> denials.
Well, my crystal ball seems to be working perfectly, Ben didn`t even
try to support one of the claim made in the first ten questions I
addressed.
>
> Which is, I suppose, the best that LNT'ers can do...
It would go a lot worse for you if you would actually try to
support the claims you make.
> >> <SNIP>
>
>
> And people wonder why you're killfiled!! :)
The right people know why. Like with the assassination, you kooks
can say or think what you like.
YoHarvey
> > Robert Harris says...
>
> > >In article
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy? Considering the reverence you hold Holmes in, one can safely
assume he's "better endowed" than even your wife. Is this true?