info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hanky Panky asks: How do you explain a bullet entry wound in the neck but no exit?
280 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Dec 5, 2023, 5:28:30 AM12/5/23
to
JE Corbett
Dec 5, 2023, 8:15:02 AM12/5/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display. These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination. These were all handguns fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet. Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets. These examples also
don't mention the caliber of the bullets. A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit. Same problems as with your theory of an
entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense. None of your
arguments ever do. You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance. The arc of the bullet would prevent that. Are we
supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate
JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak ammunition, and then try to frame a guy
who owned a high powered rifle. Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display. These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination. These were all handguns fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet. Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets. These examples also
don't mention the caliber of the bullets. A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit. Same problems as with your theory of an
entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense. None of your
arguments ever do. You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance. The arc of the bullet would prevent that. Are we
supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate
JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak ammunition, and then try to frame a guy
who owned a high powered rifle. Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
Ben Holmes
Dec 5, 2023, 10:55:00 AM12/5/23
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. ust to watch Corbutt squirm.
>Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quicly
acknowledge as true.
>These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
>comes to the JFK assassination.
No, you're lying again.
>These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
>fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
>stray bullet.
Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
assertion?
> Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power
> than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that
they ALWAYS be less powerful
> These examples also
>don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
So you have nothing to say, right?
>A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
>well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
>paralyzing him in an instant.
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the
video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
>You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.
The evidence shows otherwise.
>Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
>Same problems as with your theory of an
>entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as
fact.
They aren't.
>None of your
>arguments ever do.
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
>You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
>theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
Ditto above.
>It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
>and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
You argue that:
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come
to these "conclusions?"
>The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired
horizontally.
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY
flawed.
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
>Are we
>supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy
Can you name this fallacy?
>that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK
Does it take a "thorough and omnipotent" conspiracy to murder someone?
> and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald,
As opposed to some other schmuck? Who?
>would use such weak ammunition
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
of the proven lies told by the WCR.
>, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
>who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
> Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Your logical fallacies make zero sense as well - as most of America
agrees.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. ust to watch Corbutt squirm.
>Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quicly
acknowledge as true.
>These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
>comes to the JFK assassination.
>These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
>fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
>stray bullet.
assertion?
> Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power
> than rifle bullets.
they ALWAYS be less powerful
> These examples also
>don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
>A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
>well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
>paralyzing him in an instant.
video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
>You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
The evidence shows otherwise.
>Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
>Same problems as with your theory of an
>entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
fact.
They aren't.
>None of your
>arguments ever do.
>You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
>theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
>It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
>and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
You argue that:
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come
to these "conclusions?"
>The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired
horizontally.
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY
flawed.
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
>Are we
>supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy
>that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK
> and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald,
>would use such weak ammunition
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
of the proven lies told by the WCR.
>, and then try to frame a guy
>who owned a high powered rifle.
if you're not just telling another lie.
> Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
Your logical fallacies make zero sense as well - as most of America
agrees.
Gil Jesus
Dec 5, 2023, 1:08:00 PM12/5/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
> Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
> funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
> Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
> >Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
> There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
> all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
> acknowledge as true.
Exactly
> >These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
> >comes to the JFK assassination.
> No, you're lying again.
>
>
> >These were all handguns
>
>
> At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
> it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
> wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
> you've not done the research.
> >fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
> >stray bullet.
> Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
> assertion?
He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
He speculates a lot.
> > Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
> As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
> > These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
> So you have nothing to say, right?
> >A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
> >well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
> >paralyzing him in an instant.
> A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
> >You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
> Again, this is simply your speculation.
> The evidence shows otherwise.
> >Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
> Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
"Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
From the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, pg.7:
"The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
That's huge.
In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
> >Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
Plenty of time to remove bullets.
> To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
>
> They aren't.
> >None of your arguments ever do.
> Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
> >You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
> Ditto above.
> >It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
>
> You argue that:
>
> A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
> B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
>
> What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
> >The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
> The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
>
> **ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
> measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
> Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
>
> Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
>
> It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
> ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
> claim.
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
> That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
> >, and then try to frame a guy
> They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
> >who owned a high powered rifle.
> Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
> if you're not just telling another lie.
> > Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
JE Corbett
Dec 5, 2023, 3:23:11 PM12/5/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:08:00 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
>
> > Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
> > funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
> > >Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
>
> > There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
> > all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
> > denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
> > acknowledge as true.
>
> Exactly
You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
>
> > Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
> > funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
> > >Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
>
> > There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
> > all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
> > denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
> > acknowledge as true.
>
> Exactly
handguns. I know that because I know the penetrating power of various types of
weapons. The bullet fired from Ruby's .38 Special was powerful enough to enter
the right side of his abdomen and bulge out his right side without breaking the
skin causing massive organ damage in between. A bullet that powerful would
have penetrated all the way through JFK's neck. A non-transiting bullet would
have to be much less powerful, such as a .22LR. One of the key factors in
penetrating power is bullet velocity. Most handguns don't have sufficient velocity
to maintain their trajectory at an appreciable distance. It's quite simple. A shallow
penetrating bullet is not compatible with a long range shot because the lower
velocity result in to much bullet drop. A low velocity bullet could on find the target
at short range.
> > >These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
> > >comes to the JFK assassination.
> > No, you're lying again.
> >
> >
> > >These were all handguns
> >
> >
> > At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
> > it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
> > wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
> > you've not done the research.
>
> > >fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
> > >stray bullet.
> > Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
> > assertion?
> Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.
Nice to see you finally figured out what my real name is. You seemed stumped for a while.
> He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
> He speculates a lot.
the throat would have to be either a rifle or a high powered handgun because low velocity, low powered
firearms are not effective at distances for reasons already explained.
> > > Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
>
> > As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
.44 Magnum bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1380 fps. That is a little over half of Oswald's Carcano. The
key question is not whether a rifle or handgun was used. It is a matter of bullet velocity and distance of
the shot. You need velocity for bullet to hold its trajectory for any appreciable distance and such
velocity is going to result in deep penetration. The two go hand in hand.
>
> > > These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
> > So you have nothing to say, right?
> So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
Quit trying to reason. You suck at it.
> > > These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
> > So you have nothing to say, right?
> So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
> > >A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
> > >well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
> > >paralyzing him in an instant.
> Speculation
abdomen.
> > A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
"Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false."
The key word in the definition is "logical". Giltardo is incapable of this which is why he probably should not even try to engage
in deductive reasoning.
>
> > >You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>
> > Again, this is simply your speculation.
> > The evidence shows otherwise.
>
The person who made the above statements is a notorious liar.
> > >You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>
> > Again, this is simply your speculation.
> > The evidence shows otherwise.
>
> > >Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
> > Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
> Who has the problem, not me.
You simply ignore this conundrum as you do with all inconvenient facts.
>
> Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
> "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
> Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
The above statement is not incompatible with an exit wound in the throat. For one, JFK was in a different anotomical
> Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
> "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
> Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
position when the bullet struck than when he was on the autopsy table. He was waving to the crowd when the bullet hit
as opposed to at his side on the autopsy table. This would change the position of the muscles in the upper back. In
addition there would be swelling and rigormortis setting in.
>
rig·or mor·tis
[ˌriɡər ˈmôrdəs]
NOUN
MEDICINE
stiffening of the joints and muscles of a body a few hours after death, usually lasting from one to four days.
The stiffening of the back muscles would be sufficient to make passage of a probe difficult.
> From the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, pg.7:
> "The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
> Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
> That's huge.
APPARENT exit and no bullet in the body. That's why they searched so extensively for a bullet. Such a search should have
turned up a bullet that had entered the throat had there been one. The fact is they found no bullets anywhere in the body
which precludes there being two entrance wounds with no exit wounds.
>
> In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
That's also one thought that cross his mind. Again, a shallow entering bullet is simply incompatible with a bullet fired from
> In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
a distance. But you would have us believe JFK was struck at a distance by not one but two lower powered bullets. It simply
could not have happened.
> Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
bruised the pleura, perforated the strap muscles and nicked the trachea. You always want to ignore these later discoveries
as you do with all inconvenient facts. The autopsy team did not ignore these facts. These facts resolved the riddle as to why
they hand an entrance wound and no bullet in the body.
> It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
right in line with the wound to the trachea.
> > >Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
> Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.
remove bullets from the body would have been obvious to the FPP. No such surgery was performed. What was discovered
was the trail of tissue damage from the entrance wound in the back to the exit wound in the throat. Even Cyril Wecht
believes that finding.
> Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
dock. It would have taken some time to unload the casket .
> The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
> Plenty of time to remove bullets.
> > To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
> >
> > They aren't.
>
> > >None of your arguments ever do.
> They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
99 would laugh their asses off at you. The other one would be hard of hearing.
> > Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
>
> > >You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
> > Ditto above.
>
> > >It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
> > ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >
> > This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
> >
> > You argue that:
> >
> > A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
> > B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
> >
> > What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
> He's talking out of his ass as usual.
Actually, A & B are the only two logical statements I've ever seen Yellowpanties make, even if he was scoffing at them.
> > >It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
> > ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >
> > This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
> >
> > You argue that:
> >
> > A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
> > B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
> >
> > What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
> He's talking out of his ass as usual.
> > >The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
>
> > The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
> >
> > **ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
> > measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
> > Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
> >
> > Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
> >
> > It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
> > ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
> > claim.
> > >Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
>
> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
would be in conjunction with the obstruction of justice you allege was committed by the FBI, the DPD, and Henry Wade.
> > That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
> Yep.
> > >, and then try to frame a guy
> > They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
>
> > >who owned a high powered rifle.
>
> > Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
> > if you're not just telling another lie.
>
> > > Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
> And yet you just can't stop responding, can you ?
Ben Holmes
Dec 5, 2023, 4:04:39 PM12/5/23
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 12:23:09 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:08:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
You cannot claim your speculation as fact.
Cite for your claim, or shut up.
>>>>These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
>>>>comes to the JFK assassination.
>>> No, you're lying again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>These were all handguns
>>>
>>>
>>> At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
>>> it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
>>> wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
>>> you've not done the research.
>>
>>>>fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
>>>>stray bullet.
>>> Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
>>> assertion?
>> Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.
>
>Corbett KNOWS these were handguns...
Then cite for it.
>> He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
>> He speculates a lot.
>
>I know...
No, you speculate. You CONTINUE to refuse to cite for your
speculations...
>>>> Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
>>
>>> As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
It's worth noting that Corbutt is now responding to me.
>The most powerful handguns are nowhere near as powerful as even medium powered rifles. The fastest
>.44 Magnum bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1380 fps.
You confuse velocity with power. And no, you're simply lying again.
>>>> These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
>>> So you have nothing to say, right?
>> So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
>
>Quit trying to reason. You suck at it.
You got schooled, Corbutt. Learn to accept it.
>>>>A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
>>>>well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
>>>>paralyzing him in an instant.
>> Speculation
Again, responding to me...
>No, that is a fact.
Then cite for it.
But you won't. You're lying again...
You've conducted no tests, you've relied on no citations, you've
merely speculated, then claimed it's a fact.
>>> A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>
>>> Again, this is simply your speculation.
>>> The evidence shows otherwise.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
>>> Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
>> Who has the problem, not me.
>
>So you have no explanation...
You're lying again. This has already been explained to you.
>> Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
>> "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
>> Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
>
>The above statement is not incompatible with an exit wound in the throat.
Yes, it is.
>> From the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, pg.7:
>> "The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
>> Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
>> That's huge.
>
>No it's not huge because of one word. ORIGINALLY. Yes they were stumped ...
No, they knew where the bullet was. They removed it during the
pre-autopsy.
>> In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
>
>That's also one thought that cross his mind. Again, a shallow entering bullet is simply incompatible with a bullet fired from
>a distance.
No it isn't. You'll refuse, as usual, from citing for your wacky
speculation.
Indeed, the further the distance, THE MORE LIKELY THAT A BULLET WOULD
CREATE A SHALLOW WOUND.
>> Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
>
>Again, that was their early thinking.
And supported by their examination.
>Once they removed the organs from the torso they discovered the bullet track
You're lying again. No such bullet track was ever described.
>> It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
>
>Perry confirmed what they already suspected. That the tracheotomy had been performed over the exit wound which was
>right in line with the wound to the trachea.
You're lying again.
>>>>Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
>> Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.
>
>This idea makes no more sense now than when Lifton proposed it over 30 years ago. Any surgical procedure performed to
>remove bullets from the body would have been obvious to the FPP. No such surgery was performed.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Never bothered to read the Sibert ONeil report, did you?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=3
Surgery to the body WAS SPECIFICALLY ASSERTED BY DR. HUMES!
>> Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
>
>Which only indicates that the ambulance didn't immediately proceed to the front entrance after arriving at the rear loading
>dock. It would have taken some time to unload the casket .
Wow! You really don't know the facts, do you?
>> The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
>> Plenty of time to remove bullets.
>
>If only you had evidence instead of speculation that any bullets were removed.
If only you could publicly answer the question: What time did JFK's
body arrive at Bethesda?
Then explain what happened at that time...
>>> To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
>>>
>>> They aren't.
>>
>>>>None of your arguments ever do.
>
>> They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
>
>Make your argument of post mortem surgery to remove bullets from the body without leaving a trace
A "trace" was certainly left. Are you blind??? Have you ever
bothered to look at the Autopsy photos???
> to 100 people and 99 would laugh their asses off at you. The other one would be hard of hearing.
A meaningless speculation you can't support.
>>> Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
>>
>>>>You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
>>> Ditto above.
>
>You shouldn't ditto stupid statements. That's even dumber than the original statement.
You shouldn't whine about statements you don't understand.
Prove you don't understand by quoting what the "ditto" referred to:
>>>>It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
>>> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>>
>>> This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
>>>
>>> You argue that:
>>>
>>> A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
>>> B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
>>>
>>> What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
>> He's talking out of his ass as usual.
>
>Actually, A & B are the only two logical statements I've ever seen Yellowpanties make, even if he was scoffing at them.
Notice folks, that Corbutt again is responding to me, but doesn't
answer the questions that refute him.
>>>>The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
>>
>>> The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
>>>
>>> **ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
>>> measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
>>> Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
>>>
>>> Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
And all Corbutt could do was run...
>>> It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
>>> ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
>>> claim.
>>>>Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
>>
>> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
>
>The one you are alleging ...
Quote it.
>>> That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
>> Yep.
>
>Neither of you defined "recently". Old ammunition does not go bad if it is properly stored.
The Warren Commission defined it. Are you such a coward that you
can't look up what the WC claimed?
And defend it?
>>>>, and then try to frame a guy
>>> They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
Corbutt ran again...
>>>>who owned a high powered rifle.
>>
>>> Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
>>> if you're not just telling another lie.
Clearly, Corbutt can't.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:08:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
>>
>>> Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
>>> funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
>>>>Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
>>
>>> There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
>>> all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
>>> denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
>>> acknowledge as true.
>>
>> Exactly
>
>You exactly ignored the fact...
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
>>
>>> Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
>>> funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
>>>>Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
>>
>>> There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
>>> all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
>>> denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
>>> acknowledge as true.
>>
>> Exactly
>
You cannot claim your speculation as fact.
Cite for your claim, or shut up.
>>>>These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
>>>>comes to the JFK assassination.
>>> No, you're lying again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>These were all handguns
>>>
>>>
>>> At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
>>> it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
>>> wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
>>> you've not done the research.
>>
>>>>fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
>>>>stray bullet.
>>> Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
>>> assertion?
>> Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.
>
Then cite for it.
>> He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
>> He speculates a lot.
>
No, you speculate. You CONTINUE to refuse to cite for your
speculations...
>>>> Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
>>
>>> As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
>The most powerful handguns are nowhere near as powerful as even medium powered rifles. The fastest
>.44 Magnum bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1380 fps.
>>>> These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
>>> So you have nothing to say, right?
>> So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
>
>Quit trying to reason. You suck at it.
>>>>A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
>>>>well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
>>>>paralyzing him in an instant.
>> Speculation
>No, that is a fact.
But you won't. You're lying again...
You've conducted no tests, you've relied on no citations, you've
merely speculated, then claimed it's a fact.
>>> A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
>>>>You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>
>>> Again, this is simply your speculation.
>>> The evidence shows otherwise.
>>>>Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
>>> Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
>> Who has the problem, not me.
>
You're lying again. This has already been explained to you.
>> Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
>> "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
>> Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
>
>The above statement is not incompatible with an exit wound in the throat.
>> From the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, pg.7:
>> "The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
>> Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
>> That's huge.
>
No, they knew where the bullet was. They removed it during the
pre-autopsy.
>> In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
>
>That's also one thought that cross his mind. Again, a shallow entering bullet is simply incompatible with a bullet fired from
>a distance.
speculation.
Indeed, the further the distance, THE MORE LIKELY THAT A BULLET WOULD
CREATE A SHALLOW WOUND.
>> Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
>
>Again, that was their early thinking.
>Once they removed the organs from the torso they discovered the bullet track
>> It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
>
>Perry confirmed what they already suspected. That the tracheotomy had been performed over the exit wound which was
>right in line with the wound to the trachea.
>>>>Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
>> Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.
>
>This idea makes no more sense now than when Lifton proposed it over 30 years ago. Any surgical procedure performed to
>remove bullets from the body would have been obvious to the FPP. No such surgery was performed.
Never bothered to read the Sibert ONeil report, did you?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=3
Surgery to the body WAS SPECIFICALLY ASSERTED BY DR. HUMES!
>> Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
>
>Which only indicates that the ambulance didn't immediately proceed to the front entrance after arriving at the rear loading
>dock. It would have taken some time to unload the casket .
>> The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
>> Plenty of time to remove bullets.
>
>If only you had evidence instead of speculation that any bullets were removed.
body arrive at Bethesda?
Then explain what happened at that time...
>>> To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
>>>
>>> They aren't.
>>
>>>>None of your arguments ever do.
>
>> They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
>
>Make your argument of post mortem surgery to remove bullets from the body without leaving a trace
bothered to look at the Autopsy photos???
> to 100 people and 99 would laugh their asses off at you. The other one would be hard of hearing.
>>> Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
>>
>>>>You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
>>> Ditto above.
>
>You shouldn't ditto stupid statements. That's even dumber than the original statement.
Prove you don't understand by quoting what the "ditto" referred to:
>>>>It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
>>> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>>
>>> This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
>>>
>>> You argue that:
>>>
>>> A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
>>> B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
>>>
>>> What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
>> He's talking out of his ass as usual.
>
>Actually, A & B are the only two logical statements I've ever seen Yellowpanties make, even if he was scoffing at them.
answer the questions that refute him.
>>>>The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
>>
>>> The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
>>>
>>> **ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
>>> measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
>>> Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
>>>
>>> Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
>>> It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
>>> ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
>>> claim.
>>>>Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
>>
>> Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
>
Quote it.
>>> That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
>> Yep.
>
>Neither of you defined "recently". Old ammunition does not go bad if it is properly stored.
can't look up what the WC claimed?
And defend it?
>>>>, and then try to frame a guy
>>> They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
>>>>who owned a high powered rifle.
>>
>>> Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
>>> if you're not just telling another lie.
Hank Sienzant
Dec 5, 2023, 8:14:12 PM12/5/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > These examples also
> >don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
> So you have nothing to say, right?
> >A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
> >well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
> >paralyzing him in an instant.
> A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the
> video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
> >You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
> Again, this is simply your speculation.
== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?
Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.
Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
== unquote ==
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery. Evidence the autopsy doctors would have seen and included in the autopsy report. So you will of course expand the conspiracy to claim these doctors are lying about what they saw. It was ever thus. CTs always expand the conspiracy to explain away inconvenient facts… that's how we wind up with an altered Z-film, an altered body of the President, swapped shells, swapped bullet fragments, a swapped rifle, intimidated witnesses, lying cops, a lying Marina Oswald, and everyone out to frame innocent Lee Oswald.
>
> The evidence shows otherwise.
> >Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
> Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
> >Same problems as with your theory of an
> >entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
> To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as
> fact.
>
> They aren't.
The evidence is there was a back wound, and no bullet in the body. The evidence further is that Connally and JFK react at almost the same instant. The autopsists determined the bullet transmitted the president’s body, exiting his throat.
That’s the evidence. It leads me to conclude one bullet struck both men.
> >None of your
> >arguments ever do.
> Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
> >You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
> >theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
> Ditto above.
> >It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
> >and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
>
> You argue that:
>
> A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
> B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
>
> What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come
> to these "conclusions?"
> >The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
> The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
>
> **ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
> measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
> Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired
> horizontally.
>
> Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY
> flawed.
He clearly meant strike what you are aiming at. Bullets have a nearly straight trajectory, and in the 100th of a second the bullet was in flight, it would not vary greatly from a straight line. If it was slowed through a misfire, it would hit below what it was aimed it, and it would have much lower velocity, meaning it was in flight longer, and would drop further. If you posit a low velocity bullet from a misfire to get around the supposed shallow back wound, then you're also positing a bullet that doesn't hit JFK in the back, unless the gunman was firing over JFK’s head.
It's called physics.
>
> It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
> ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
> claim.
> >Are we
> >supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy
> Can you name this fallacy?
> >that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK
> Does it take a "thorough and omnipotent" conspiracy to murder someone?
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
> > and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald,
> As opposed to some other schmuck? Who?
>
>
> >would use such weak ammunition
>
>
> That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
> and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
> of the proven lies told by the WCR.
> >, and then try to frame a guy
> They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
> >who owned a high powered rifle.
> Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
> if you're not just telling another lie.
> > Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
> Can you name this logical fallacy?
>
> Your logical fallacies make zero sense as well - as most of America
> agrees.
recip...@gmail.com
Dec 5, 2023, 8:57:19 PM12/5/23
to
Depends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?
It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
JE Corbett
Dec 5, 2023, 11:25:07 PM12/5/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.
>
Just to clarify, that was supposed to say throat. I'm guessing that didn't hit the "a" firmly enough on the keyboard and it came
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.
>
out throt. Auto correct might have changed it to throw. I think I'll turn that off.
Otherwise, you have done an outstanding job of shooting down just about every one of Yellowpanties inane arguments.
JE Corbett
Dec 5, 2023, 11:50:49 PM12/5/23
to
which is why a .357 Magnum revolver can fire .38 Special ammo.
The kind of low penetrating bullet Gil and Yellowpanties are talking about would be the .22LR. That is the caliber of bullet
Sirhan used to kill RFK. Even that round passed through the skull wall and penetrated to the brain stem, so it is highly
unlikely that even a bullet that weak would make just a shallow entry into JFK's throat. John Hinckley also used a .22 to
shoot Ronald Reagan. That bullet entered Reagan's chest below his right armpit and came dangerously close to his heart.
Even the pipsqueak .22LR has more penetrating power than what the Dynamic Duo are postulating. Maybe a Saturday Night
Special would make such a shallow wound. The best marksman in the world would have trouble making an accurate shot
with that kind of gun at more than 50 feet.
NoTrueFlags Here
Dec 6, 2023, 12:58:34 AM12/6/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these unnamed other people say. If he had a conscience, this trick would bother him. But Hank has no conscience. Anybody who defends mass murderers, of course, has none.
Gil Jesus
Dec 6, 2023, 7:44:56 AM12/6/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
> No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
> But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
JE Corbett
Dec 6, 2023, 9:23:30 AM12/6/23
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:44:56 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
> Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
> > No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
> Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
> Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
> > No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
> Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
> > But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
> Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
>
> Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>
> You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
> Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 10:17:29 AM12/6/23
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 17:14:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 10:18:58 AM12/6/23
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:25:05 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Every single day that Huckster posts, he proves himself a coward.
And I can't take the credit, he does it all by himself. (As do you.)
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.
>>
>Just to clarify, that was supposed to say throat. I'm guessing that didn't hit the "a" firmly enough on the keyboard and it came
>out throt. Auto correct might have changed it to throw. I think I'll turn that off.
>
>Otherwise, you have done an outstanding job of shooting down just about every one of Yellowpanties inane arguments.
That's not possble from a coward.
>
>> He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.
>>
>Just to clarify, that was supposed to say throat. I'm guessing that didn't hit the "a" firmly enough on the keyboard and it came
>out throt. Auto correct might have changed it to throw. I think I'll turn that off.
>
>Otherwise, you have done an outstanding job of shooting down just about every one of Yellowpanties inane arguments.
Every single day that Huckster posts, he proves himself a coward.
And I can't take the credit, he does it all by himself. (As do you.)
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 10:25:08 AM12/6/23
to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 04:44:54 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
>
>Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Huckster, like all other believers, is TERRIFIED of what time JFK's
body arrived at Bethesda... because they *KNOW* that it's absolutely
inconceivable that the body arrived, and nothing happened.
And, as Gil points out, the evidence shows that there *WAS* evidence
of post mortem surgery... evidence that I find it difficult to believe
Huckster was unaware of... so he's simply lying again.
>> No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
>Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
Huckster will run.
As he does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
He cannot publicly admit that there's no evidence for an exit wound at
JFK's throat... and POSITIVE corroborating evidence that it's an
entry.
>> But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
>
>Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
>Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
>https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>
>You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
>Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
Huckster is slicker than most, but he's still a coward and a liar, as
all believers end up being.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
>
>Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
body arrived at Bethesda... because they *KNOW* that it's absolutely
inconceivable that the body arrived, and nothing happened.
And, as Gil points out, the evidence shows that there *WAS* evidence
of post mortem surgery... evidence that I find it difficult to believe
Huckster was unaware of... so he's simply lying again.
>> No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
>Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
As he does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
He cannot publicly admit that there's no evidence for an exit wound at
JFK's throat... and POSITIVE corroborating evidence that it's an
entry.
>> But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
>
>Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
>Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
>https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>
>You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
>Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
all believers end up being.
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 10:45:05 AM12/6/23
to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 06:23:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:44:56?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
the trach incision.
You're simply lying again.
And will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your lie.
>>> But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
>> Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
>A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
Where did much of the "evidence" come from?
You can't answer... And won't.
>The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
And cannot be defended by you.
>Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Because, despite having your head up the your own Corbutt, it does.
>> Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
>> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>>
>See above.
See above.
>> You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
>> Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
>
>The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted.
Yes. It is. Which is why you so desperate deny it.
> The question is whether the evidence against Oswald is genuine.
You can't cite it... (and have refused every single time I've asked
you to cite it.) Meaning *YOU* know you can't defend it.
> There is no evidence that it is not
Provably a lie.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
>one else.
The throat wound and Connally's wrist wound point to someone else. The
NAA does *NOT* point to Oswald.
So you're simply lying again.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:44:56?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
>> Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
>>> No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
>> Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
>
>No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Those who had both training AND experience did indeed see it before
>>> You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
>> Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
>>> No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
>> Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
>
>No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
the trach incision.
You're simply lying again.
And will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your lie.
>>> But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
>> Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
>
>A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
You can't answer... And won't.
>The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
>Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
>> Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
>> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>>
>See above.
See above.
>> You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
>> Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
>
>The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted.
> The question is whether the evidence against Oswald is genuine.
you to cite it.) Meaning *YOU* know you can't defend it.
> There is no evidence that it is not
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
>one else.
NAA does *NOT* point to Oswald.
So you're simply lying again.
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 10:47:19 AM12/6/23
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:50:47 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:57:19?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
You're lying again, Corbutt.
You'll **NEVER** quote any such statement by me. You're simply making
things up. Do it again, and I'll release the information I have on
your child molestion charges.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:57:19?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 4:28:30?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
>> Depends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?
>>
>> It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
>
>More powerful than the .38 Colt but less so than the .357 Magnum. That latter has the same diameter as the .38 Special
>which is why a .357 Magnum revolver can fire .38 Special ammo.
>
>The kind of low penetrating bullet Gil and Yellowpanties are talking about...
>> > https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
>> Depends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?
>>
>> It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
>
>More powerful than the .38 Colt but less so than the .357 Magnum. That latter has the same diameter as the .38 Special
>which is why a .357 Magnum revolver can fire .38 Special ammo.
>
You're lying again, Corbutt.
You'll **NEVER** quote any such statement by me. You're simply making
things up. Do it again, and I'll release the information I have on
your child molestion charges.
BT George
Dec 6, 2023, 11:23:16 AM12/6/23
to
BT George
Dec 6, 2023, 11:27:34 AM12/6/23
to
JE Corbett
Dec 6, 2023, 12:21:58 PM12/6/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 12:49:23 PM12/6/23
to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 09:21:57 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
Highlighting the cowardice of believers to answer these intelligent
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
AND RELEVANT questions is the mark of a moron when you're the one
refusiing to answer them.
BT George
Dec 6, 2023, 1:11:46 PM12/6/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Dec 6, 2023, 1:53:15 PM12/6/23
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:58:34 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
> This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these unnamed other people say.
These are not generalizations, but actual claims by actual CTs that I am repeating here. If Gil or Ben don't believe these claims, they need merely post they don't believe them. If they do, they should defend them with citations to the evidence and reasoned argument.
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
> This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these unnamed other people say.
Here’s what NTF excised:
— quote —
> That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
> and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
> of the proven lies told by the WCR.
> >, and then try to frame a guy
> They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
But not in yours, right? So explain why “they” choose Oswald, a supposed poor shot, and then framed him for owning a old weapon that supposedly couldn't shoot straight, instead of framing a good shooter with a good weapon, or at least frame Oswald for owning a good weapon.
> and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
> of the proven lies told by the WCR.
> >, and then try to frame a guy
> They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
But not in yours, right? So explain why “they” choose Oswald, a supposed poor shot, and then framed him for owning a old weapon that supposedly couldn't shoot straight, instead of framing a good shooter with a good weapon, or at least frame Oswald for owning a good weapon.
This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
— unquote —
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon. These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
> If he had a conscience, this trick would bother him. But Hank has no conscience. Anybody who defends mass murderers, of course, has none.
JE Corbett
Dec 6, 2023, 1:54:03 PM12/6/23
to
in the throat but no exit? Of course that's possible with a low powered round. It's not even about whether such a low powered
round could have struck JFK from any appreciable distance, even though that is a highly dubious proposition. The issue is
that if you have an entrance wound with no exit, there should be a bullet in the body. In JFK's case, there was an entrance
wound in the back and if the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there should be two bullets in the body. There were
none. Gil suggests, without actually stating, that pre-autopsy surgery was used to remove the bullets from the body. Never
mind that there was no sign of such surgery on the body. Giltardo doesn't bother to tell us who did they surgery although he
suggests the clandestine surgery was done from the time the body arrived until the autopsy began at 8:00pm. Giltardo
suggests that was the reason everyone was asked to leave the room. That would suggest Humes and Boswell were in on
the coverup. If that were true, why bother digging the bullets out? Why not just leave them in and say they didn't find any?
Why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck kept in the dark about an entry wound in the throat. If they were part of the cover up,
why wouldn't they have been informed of it and that they were supposed to conclude it was an exit wound? If it wasn't
Humes, Boswell, and Finck who dug these alleged bullets out of JFK's neck, who did the clandestine surgery prior to 8:00pm
and how were they able to get unfettered access to the body?
The simple fact is the autopsy report shoots down most of the popular conspiracy myths and is perfectly consistent with
the SBT. The conspiracy hobbyists want to cling to their myths so they need and excuse to dismiss the medical evidence.
Over three decades ago, a schmuck named David Lifton dreamed up a bizarre tale of body alteration prior to the autopsy
as their excuse for dismissing the medical evidence. Since no one since has come up with a plausible alternative, the hard
core conspiracy hobbyists continue to cling to this myth..
NoTrueFlags Here
Dec 6, 2023, 1:54:45 PM12/6/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 2:05:23 PM12/6/23
to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 10:53:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ben needs to explain ...
Huckster thinks he can demand answers when he refuses to GIVE answers:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ben needs to explain ...
Huckster thinks he can demand answers when he refuses to GIVE answers:
Ben Holmes
Dec 6, 2023, 2:24:45 PM12/6/23
to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 10:54:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What Giltardo does is divert.
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What Giltardo does is divert.
Huckster Sienzant.
Notice also that even though Huckster is posting in this thread, he
**NEVER** points out these logical fallacies by fellow believers.
Quite the hypocrisy, eh Huckster?
>The thread asks the wrong question. The issue is not whether you could have an entry wound
>in the throat but no exit?
RAISED IT.
>Of course that's possible with a low powered round. It's not even about whether such a low powered
>round could have struck JFK from any appreciable distance, even though that is a highly dubious proposition.
constantly pointing out how small Dealey Plaza actually is.
They don't seem to remember their own talking points.
>The issue is that if you have an entrance wound with no exit, there should be a bullet in the body.
>In JFK's case, there was an entrance
>wound in the back and if the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there should be two bullets in the body.
>There were none.
At what point in time?
>Gil suggests, without actually stating, that pre-autopsy surgery was used to remove the bullets from the body.
removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.
Now, I know you're a coward, and refuse to address the EVIDENCE for
this taking place... so there's that.
>Never mind that there was no sign of such surgery on the body.
Both Gil and I have pointed to exactly this, in the Sibert ONeil
report.
Huckster Sienzant knows you're lying here, but won't comment.
>Giltardo doesn't bother to tell us who did they surgery
>although he
>suggests the clandestine surgery was done from the time the body arrived until the autopsy began at 8:00pm.
I've asked this question DOZENS of times in this forum over the last
few years, and not a single believer has dared to answer.
>Giltardo suggests that was the reason everyone was asked to leave the room.
>That would suggest Humes and Boswell were in on the coverup.
>If that were true, why bother digging the bullets out? Why not just leave them in and say they didn't find any?
Are you as much a moron as this question implies?
>Why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck kept in the dark about an entry wound in the throat.
dissect the wound in the throat. **YOU** need to explain why.
Or run like the coward you are... Again.
> If they were part of the cover up, why wouldn't they have been
> informed of it and that they were supposed to conclude it was an exit
> wound?
>If it wasn't
>Humes, Boswell, and Finck
>who dug these alleged bullets out of JFK's neck,
>who did the clandestine surgery prior to 8:00pm
>and how were they able to get unfettered access to the body?
>The simple fact is the autopsy report shoots down most of the popular conspiracy myths and is perfectly consistent with
>the SBT.
>The conspiracy hobbyists want to cling to their myths so they need and excuse to dismiss the medical evidence.
conclusions put forth by the WCR.
>Over three decades ago, a schmuck named David Lifton dreamed up a bizarre tale of body alteration prior to the autopsy
>as their excuse for dismissing the medical evidence. Since no one since has come up with a plausible alternative, the hard
>core conspiracy hobbyists continue to cling to this myth..
And what medical evidence are we "dismissing?"
Indeed, its YOU who dismisses medical evidence... such as where the
largest fragments are found in the trail of bullet fragments in the AP
X-ray. This is ANOTHER question that not a single believer has ever
answered.
Such amazing cowardice!!!
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 5:07:43 AM12/7/23
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 9:23:30 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
No, the case against Oswald was made by the Dallas Police.
> The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 5:14:36 AM12/7/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
Source ?
> You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 5:17:42 AM12/7/23
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 9:23:30 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
So you're suggesting that Wade never framed anyone until the case came to trial ?
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 5:22:47 AM12/7/23
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
> What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 5:37:02 AM12/7/23
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
> These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 5:43:20 AM12/7/23
to
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
> You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
JE Corbett
Dec 7, 2023, 7:46:02 AM12/7/23
to
This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you. You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process. You start with the
conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them. Anything that
is necessary for those things to be true must have happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened. This is just
the latest example of your methodology. You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound. In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets in the body, you
assume somebody must have removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever happening. I must have
happened or there would still be bullets in the body. You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target and the fact you need not one but two such bullets. You
refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit. Since the
back wound was provably and entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit. You also ignore
the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat. You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was killed
by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his
throat is incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what happened. It doesn't
matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates, you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front, so the
medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.
Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.
JE Corbett
Dec 7, 2023, 7:54:56 AM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
> Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
> No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
> Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
> No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
anybody noticing? Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle? How did they even know he had a
rifle? How did they knew where he kept it? One last question.
Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
lame excuses for not answering.
> > These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
> It makes no sense to you, of course.
JE Corbett
Dec 7, 2023, 8:01:02 AM12/7/23
to
once again you divert, in this case to what Hank has said rather than answering for yourself. You are the one that started
this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise. Rather than do that, when
faced with critical questioning of your premise, you divert to what someone else has said. That doesn't relieve you of your
burden to support your premise.
JE Corbett
Dec 7, 2023, 8:06:53 AM12/7/23
to
I know the question is irrelevant to the question of Oswald's guilt or innocence since Wade
did not prosecute Oswald.
One more example of what Bud has said about conspiracy hobbyists for a long time. They
look at all the wrong things and do so incorrectly.
Prosecutor: I object on the grounds the question is irrelevant and immaterial.
Judge Gildtardo: OVERRULED.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:33:18 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 02:14:34 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:23:11?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
>> You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
>
>Source ?
Don't hold your breath. The only "source" Corbutt can cite is his
speculation.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:23:11?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
>> You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
>
>Source ?
speculation.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:35:57 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 02:37:00 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
>
>Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
>Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
>No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
This is how desperate believer are becoming... they can't follow
common sense. Gil is right, of course.
>> These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
>
>It makes no sense to you, of course.
And the explanations HAVE been posted or published. Huckster is doing
what Huckster does best... lie.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
>
>Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
>Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
>No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
common sense. Gil is right, of course.
>> These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
>
>It makes no sense to you, of course.
what Huckster does best... lie.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:46:07 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:54:54 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
support mine quite well. And if he should dare to start answering, I
can answer this one easily, and in detail, and CREDIBLY.
>> Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
>> Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
>> No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
>
>How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
>anybody noticing?
They *were* noticed. One was noticed coming down the stairs, and
another was noticed fleeing out the back.
A little thought on your part can deal with the weapons. But if you
can't figure it out, I'll be happy to slap you with the obvious.
>Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
>only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
>How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
>How did they even know he had a
>rifle?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
> How did they knew where he kept it?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
> One last question.
>
>Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
>lame excuses for not answering.
I'll answer, IN DETAIL, each of the above questions when you answer,
IN DETAIL, this: When did you stop molesting your grandmother?
Since this is an inconvenient question, I'm not expecting you to
answer but instead simply run away. As you do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
>>> These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
>> It makes no sense to you, of course.
>
>Nor to any sensible person.
As most of America agrees with us, this is clearly a lie.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from
>>> multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor
>>> shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from
>>> one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle
>>> and making those shots with that good weapon.
Huckster need to explain why he can't support his own statements. I
>>> Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from
>>> multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor
>>> shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from
>>> one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle
>>> and making those shots with that good weapon.
support mine quite well. And if he should dare to start answering, I
can answer this one easily, and in detail, and CREDIBLY.
>> Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
>> Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
>> No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
>
>How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
>anybody noticing?
another was noticed fleeing out the back.
A little thought on your part can deal with the weapons. But if you
can't figure it out, I'll be happy to slap you with the obvious.
>Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
>only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?
>How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle?
>How did they even know he had a
>rifle?
> How did they knew where he kept it?
> One last question.
>
>Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
>lame excuses for not answering.
IN DETAIL, this: When did you stop molesting your grandmother?
Since this is an inconvenient question, I'm not expecting you to
answer but instead simply run away. As you do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
>>> These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
>> It makes no sense to you, of course.
>
>Nor to any sensible person.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:48:09 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 02:22:45 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
And now that Gil has PROVEN that he didn't "divert" - watch as Corbutt
refuses to acknowledge this, and just moves on...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
refuses to acknowledge this, and just moves on...
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:51:05 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 05:01:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:22:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
liar, but he just moves on... (in this case - doubling down on a lie.)
>I'll let Hank speak for himself. I let you do the same but you are never able to come up with answers or explanations so
>once again you divert, in this case to what Hank has said rather than answering for yourself.
ROTFLMAO!!! Gill just proved you a liar...
> You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up
> with the premise.
So he's not allowed to respond to the kooks who reply?
>It is your burden to support your premise.
He did.
I deleted the rest of your lies...
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:22:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:54:03?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>
>> > What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
>>
>> No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
>>
>> He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
>> Maybe you should discuss it with him.
LOL!! I was right! Corbutt got slapped with a cite - proving him a
>>
>> > What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
>>
>> No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
>>
>> He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
>> Maybe you should discuss it with him.
liar, but he just moves on... (in this case - doubling down on a lie.)
>I'll let Hank speak for himself. I let you do the same but you are never able to come up with answers or explanations so
>once again you divert, in this case to what Hank has said rather than answering for yourself.
> You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up
> with the premise.
>It is your burden to support your premise.
I deleted the rest of your lies...
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:52:43 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 05:06:52 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:17:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 9:23:30?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> > Acompletely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
you've already told us all we need to know.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:17:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 9:23:30?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> > Acompletely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
>> So you're suggesting that Wade never framed anyone until the case came to trial ?
>
>I have no idea whether Wade ever deliberately framed anyone prior to the assassination.
And yet, you take the time to answer... I deleted your answer, since
>
>I have no idea whether Wade ever deliberately framed anyone prior to the assassination.
you've already told us all we need to know.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 10:56:34 AM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Tell you what... go ahead and get a full body X-ray, then come to
Oxnard California - we'll get another full body X-ray, and see if
bullets have suddenly appeared in your body.
> Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
No moron, they get taken out.
>This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you. You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
>looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process. You start with the
>conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them. Anything that
>is necessary for those things to be true must have happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened. This is just
>the latest example of your methodology. You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
>entrance wound. In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets in the body, you
>assume somebody must have removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever happening. I must have
>happened or there would still be bullets in the body. You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
>velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target and the fact you need not one but two such bullets. You
>refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit. Since the
>back wound was provably and entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit. You also ignore
>the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
>to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
>that was made over the bullet wound in the throat. You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was killed
>by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his
>throat is incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what happened. It doesn't
>matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
>explanation for what the medical evidence indicates, you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front, so the
>medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
>to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.
>Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.
I left this word vomit in for laughs. What time did JFK's body arrive
at Bethesda?
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>
>> Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
>> At what time were the Xrays taken ?
>
>Does it matter?
ARE YOU STUPID???
>>> You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>
>> Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
>> At what time were the Xrays taken ?
>
>Does it matter?
Tell you what... go ahead and get a full body X-ray, then come to
Oxnard California - we'll get another full body X-ray, and see if
bullets have suddenly appeared in your body.
> Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you. You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
>looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process. You start with the
>conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them. Anything that
>is necessary for those things to be true must have happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened. This is just
>the latest example of your methodology. You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
>entrance wound. In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets in the body, you
>assume somebody must have removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever happening. I must have
>happened or there would still be bullets in the body. You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
>velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target and the fact you need not one but two such bullets. You
>refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit. Since the
>back wound was provably and entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit. You also ignore
>the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
>to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
>that was made over the bullet wound in the throat. You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was killed
>by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his
>throat is incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what happened. It doesn't
>matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
>explanation for what the medical evidence indicates, you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front, so the
>medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
>to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.
>Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.
at Bethesda?
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 11:44:46 AM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
Corbett spanked again by Ben.
>What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 11:48:01 AM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 8:01:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
No I started this thread about what Hanky Panky said.
> You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
Don't you read good ? LOL.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 12:11:12 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:47:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 8:01:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
>
>No I started this thread about what Hanky Panky said.
>Don't you read good ? LOL.
Nah, he reads goodly.
He just doesn't read honestly.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 8:01:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
>
>No I started this thread about what Hanky Panky said.
>Don't you read good ? LOL.
He just doesn't read honestly.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 12:13:07 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:44:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 10:56:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
>
>Corbett spanked again by Ben.
Corbutt is AFRAID to cite the evidence for the time JFK arrived at
Bethesda.
This is because he *KNOWS* just how wacky it will seem when he is
forced to claim that the body just laid there... and everyone waiting
for 8pm.
He can't admit his lies... or defend 'em.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 10:56:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
>
>Corbett spanked again by Ben.
Bethesda.
This is because he *KNOWS* just how wacky it will seem when he is
forced to claim that the body just laid there... and everyone waiting
for 8pm.
He can't admit his lies... or defend 'em.
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 12:21:52 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
> >
> > Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
> > At what time were the Xrays taken ?
> Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>
> Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
> >
> > Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
> > At what time were the Xrays taken ?
> Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
> You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
> to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
> that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
> It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 12:33:46 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 09:21:50 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
>> to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
>> that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
>
>Source ?
Don't hold your breath... Corbutt will never source a lie.
>> It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
>
>Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
>
>What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
>
>Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
>
>When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
>
>Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
>
>The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
>
>Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Slapping Corbutt with evidence again, I see.
He'll run.
Believers always run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> > You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>>
>>> Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
>>> At what time were the Xrays taken ?
>> Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>>
>> Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
>
>Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
>They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Indeed it is. If the WCR said it, they think it's evidence.
>>> > You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>>
>>> Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
>>> At what time were the Xrays taken ?
>> Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>>
>> Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
>
>Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
>They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
>> You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
>> to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
>> that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
>
>Source ?
>> It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
>
>Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
>
>What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
>
>Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
>
>When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
>
>Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
>
>The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
>
>Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
He'll run.
Believers always run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Hank Sienzant
Dec 7, 2023, 1:23:01 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:22:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> > What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
>
> No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
>
First, look at everything you failed to answer:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> > What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
>
> No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
>
— quote —
Why would ‘they’ do anything like that, when ‘they’ could have simply exposed JFK’s affairs and had him voted out of office? This means ‘they’ are not committing treason. This doesn't sound like a bizarre plan to you — shoot JFK from multiple directions, then attempt to frame a lone shooter, and then have to alter or substitute all the evidence that doesn't point to the appointed patsy?
What was the plan if Connally or someone else was shot from the knoll or other than the TSBD? Or if the President survived? How do you alter the wounds on a living person, or explain a bullet entry wound in the neck but no exit?
What’s the plan?
— unquote —
I’m asking why “they” chose to frame a lone nut by shooting JFK from multiple directions - that make a whole lot LESS sense than shooting JFK from one direction, and framing Oswald for owning that weapon. Doing it the latter way means you don't have to alter the body, alter any films, swap out shells, swap out or plant bullets, swap out the rifle, yada yada, all the stuff that critics allege.
But you think they *chose* to do it the hard way. Explain your thinking here. How did you arrive at the hard way instead of the easy way?
> He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
> Maybe you should discuss it with him.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 1:33:05 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:22:59 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>First, look at everything you failed to answer:
Indeed:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>First, look at everything you failed to answer:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
Dec 7, 2023, 1:49:45 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
> Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
To kill a President if the reward was high enough? Certainly. Everything has a price. Why couldn't this “professional assassin” simply purchase another model of the same rifle he favors, and use that?
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
> Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
> No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
Do you even listen to yourself? You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one, but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions, then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body, another team to alter the films and photos as needed, another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
> > These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
> It makes no sense to you, of course.
Hank Sienzant
Dec 7, 2023, 1:51:09 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:54:56 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
> > Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> > Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ? No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
> How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
> anybody noticing?
And not just one shooter, other shooters from other buildings as well! Remember critics posit multiple shooters (the most common number is three, but I’ve seen suggestions of as many as eight). They all have to get away with their weapons or leave them behind to be discovered.
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
> > Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
> > Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ? No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
> How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
> anybody noticing?
JE Corbett
Dec 7, 2023, 1:58:13 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 12:21:52 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > > You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
> > >
> > > Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
> > > At what time were the Xrays taken ?
> > Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
> >
> > Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
>
> Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
> They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Unlike you they were not simpletons. They could process information. They had an entry wound in the back, contusions to
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > > You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
> > >
> > > Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
> > > At what time were the Xrays taken ?
> > Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
> >
> > Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
>
> Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
> They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
the pleura and strap muscles, and damage to the trachea. This trail of damage led to the tracheotomy incision which would
lead a thinking person to suspect the bullet had exited at the place where the tracheotomy incision had been made, a
suspicion confirmed in Humes's call to Dr. Perry.
> > You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
> > to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
> > that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
> Source ?
The connection between the back wound and the throat wound begins with the last sentence on page 4 of the above report
and continues on to page 6 where the damage to the strap muscles and trachea are documented.
> > It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
> Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
>
> What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
>
The agreed with the original report that said a missile entered JFK's back and exited from his throat.
> What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
>
> Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
>
> When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
>
> Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
>
> The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
So now you want to rely on FBI agents to interpret the medical evidence. You really are a silly little man.
> The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
>
> Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Yes it is and I have the intelligence to know medical professionals should interpret the medical evidence. You're the other
> Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
guy.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 2:02:11 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:51:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still running, eh Huckster?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still running, eh Huckster?
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 2:02:33 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:49:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still a coward, eh Huckster?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Still a coward, eh Huckster?
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 2:13:10 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:58:11 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 12:21:52?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Huckster Sienant.
>They had an entry wound in the back, contusions to
>the pleura and strap muscles, and damage to the trachea. This trail of damage led to the tracheotomy incision which would
>lead a thinking person to suspect the bullet had exited at the place where the tracheotomy incision had been made
How did this evidence lead you to believe it was an exit, and not an
entrance?
Just *WHAT* evidence showed the direction?
>a suspicion confirmed in Humes's call to Dr. Perry.
When was this call made?
>>> You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
>>> to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
>>> that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
>> Source ?
>
>https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf
So you just lied, right? Nowhere in there does it mention taking out
the trachea.
>The connection between the back wound and the throat wound begins with the last sentence on page 4 of the above report
>and continues on to page 6 where the damage to the strap muscles and trachea are documented.
And the support for your lie about what was taken out of the body??
>>> It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
>> Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
>
>Yes, that's what intelligent people do. They don't look for convoluted explanations when a simple one is available.
But your "simple" one doesn't explain the known facts.
Such as the evidence for an entry wound in the throat.
>> What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
>>
>The agreed with the original report that said a missile entered JFK's back and exited from his throat.
No moron... you simply RAN when Gil both quoted and CITED for this:
>> Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
Corbutt ran.
>> When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Corbutt ran.
>> Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
Corbutt ran.
>How many times...
Do we need to point out your cowardice & lies?
As often as you post them.
>> The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
>
>So now you want to rely on FBI agents to interpret the medical evidence. You really are a silly little man.
So now you want to disregard eyewitnesses to the autpsy that are
CORROBORATED by the doctors... you really are a stupid little boy.
>> Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
>
>Yes it is...
ROTFLMAO!!! You lose!
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 12:21:52?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>>> You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>>>
>>>> Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
>>>> At what time were the Xrays taken ?
>>> Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>>>
>>> Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
>>
>> Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
>> They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
>
>Unlike you they were not simpletons. They could process information.
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
>>>>> You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
>>>>
>>>> Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
>>>> At what time were the Xrays taken ?
>>> Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
>>>
>>> Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
>>
>> Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
>> They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
>
>Unlike you they were not simpletons. They could process information.
Huckster Sienant.
>They had an entry wound in the back, contusions to
>the pleura and strap muscles, and damage to the trachea. This trail of damage led to the tracheotomy incision which would
>lead a thinking person to suspect the bullet had exited at the place where the tracheotomy incision had been made
entrance?
Just *WHAT* evidence showed the direction?
>a suspicion confirmed in Humes's call to Dr. Perry.
>>> You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
>>> to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
>>> that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
>> Source ?
>
>https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf
the trachea.
>The connection between the back wound and the throat wound begins with the last sentence on page 4 of the above report
>and continues on to page 6 where the damage to the strap muscles and trachea are documented.
>>> It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
>> Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
>
>Yes, that's what intelligent people do. They don't look for convoluted explanations when a simple one is available.
Such as the evidence for an entry wound in the throat.
>> What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
>>
>The agreed with the original report that said a missile entered JFK's back and exited from his throat.
>> Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
>> When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
>> Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
>How many times...
Do we need to point out your cowardice & lies?
As often as you post them.
>> The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
>
>So now you want to rely on FBI agents to interpret the medical evidence. You really are a silly little man.
CORROBORATED by the doctors... you really are a stupid little boy.
>> Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
>
ROTFLMAO!!! You lose!
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 2:14:46 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
Who said that ?
>
> Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
Where do you people get this shit from ?
Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
> You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
I never said anything about people being hired. Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
> Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
> planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
> Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 2:26:26 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:14:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:49:45?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>> Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
>
>Who said that ?
Huckster won't say...
>I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
>Where do you people get this shit from ?
>Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
Because believers can't handle what we ACTUALLY say.
>> You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
>
>I never said anything about saving a few dollars. Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?
The answer is probably "yes."
>but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
>
>Just like they had planned to do to Castro.
>
>then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
>another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
>another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
>
>I never said anything about people being hired. Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
>What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
Because he doesn't think.
>> Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
>> planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
>
>Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
Yep... true that!
>> Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
>
>That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
Huckster won't. He'll run. As he does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:49:45?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>> Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
>
>Who said that ?
>I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
>Where do you people get this shit from ?
>Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
>> You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
>
>I never said anything about saving a few dollars. Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?
>but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
>
>Just like they had planned to do to Castro.
>
>then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
>another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
>another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
>
>I never said anything about people being hired. Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
>What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
>> Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
>> planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
>
>Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
>> Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
>
>That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Gil Jesus
Dec 7, 2023, 2:28:20 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> First, look at everything you failed to answer:
I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
> First, look at everything you failed to answer:
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
Since then:
I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
You ran
I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
You ran.
You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
Nobody's buying it here.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 3:36:41 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:28:19 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> First, look at everything you failed to answer:
>
>I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
>You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
>Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
Huckster's a coward who simply cannot answer legitimate evidential
questions. He's been caught lying a number of times about the
evidence, saying things that are not supportable - such as his lie
about the Parkland news conference.
But I'm not saying anything that you don't know, Gil.
>Since then:
>
>I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
>
>You ran
>
>I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
>
>You ran.
>
>You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
>Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
>Nobody's buying it here.
Huckster can't win... he knows it. This is why he tries to limit
things to just topics he's willing to address. But his cowardice
shows just where the truth lies...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> First, look at everything you failed to answer:
>
>I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
>You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
>Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
questions. He's been caught lying a number of times about the
evidence, saying things that are not supportable - such as his lie
about the Parkland news conference.
But I'm not saying anything that you don't know, Gil.
>Since then:
>
>I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
>
>You ran
>
>I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
>
>You ran.
>
>You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
>Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
>Nobody's buying it here.
things to just topics he's willing to address. But his cowardice
shows just where the truth lies...
Hank Sienzant
Dec 7, 2023, 4:41:22 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
> Who said that ?
> I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
> Where do you people get this shit from ?
> Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
Your theory is that Oswald was framed with a “piece of junk” rifle by conspirators who then planted that “piece of junk” weapon. You are further theorizing that there were multiple shooters, as you claim JFK was shot from multiple directions. Your theory raises the questions I asked.
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:49:45 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
> Who said that ?
> I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
> Where do you people get this shit from ?
> Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
For example at the link below if ask if Oswald owned the rifle in evidence:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/
Clearly you are suggesting that Oswald was framed for owning that rifle, and that the conspirators, who could have framed Oswald for owning any weapon, chose to frame Oswald for owning a piece of junk rifle. I am asking you why they would do that. If not a cost consideration, why a poor weapon instead of a good one?
Why shoot JFK from multiple locations if the plan is to frame Oswald as a lone shooter?
Why frame Oswald with a lousy weapon instead of a good one?
> > You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
> I never said anything about saving a few dollars.
— quote —
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
— unquote —
That implies cost is a consideration. Again, why not spend a few dollars more and frame Oswald for owning a good weapon instead of a lousy one if cost is not a consideration?
> Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?
> but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
> Just like they had planned to do to Castro.
> then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
> another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
> another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
> I never said anything about people being hired.
And they got qualified surgeons who hated JFK to volunteer to alter the President’s wounds in Dallas *and* in Bethesda *and* in Walter Reed? They were all on standby for various contingencies?
>
Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
> What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
> > Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
> > planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
> Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
> > Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
> That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
You have failed to explain any of the issues with your theory that i’ve brought up.
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 4:43:35 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
Hank Sienzant
Dec 7, 2023, 5:02:38 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > First, look at everything you failed to answer:
> I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
> You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
No, I responded with numerous citations to the evidence, explaining what happened and why in a number of questions you asked - many of which were begged questions or unproven assumptions by you.. I don't do insults.
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > First, look at everything you failed to answer:
> I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
> You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
After you “scored” my responses in summary form only, without telling me what you judged right and what you judged wrong, I invited you to delineate exactly which answers of mine were off the mark. You never did. I invited you to discuss those issues and work out our differences. You never did.
> Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
>
> Since then:
>
> I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
>
> You ran
>
> I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
How much do you grant?
>
> You ran.
>
> You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
You’re the one running. You have a theory that you can’t support when any of your assumptions are challenged.
> You ran.
>
> You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
> Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
> Nobody's buying it here.
It’s a convenient excuse, but that’s all it is. If cost is not a consideration, why frame Oswald for owning a lousy, cheap weapon that was a “piece of junk”, when for a few dollars more, you could frame him for owning a better weapon that was not a “piece of junk”?
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 5:04:58 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:02:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:28:20?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Yes. Here's another example of your cowardice:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:28:20?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> First, look at everything you failed to answer:
>> I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
>> You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
>
>No...
>>> First, look at everything you failed to answer:
>> I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
>> You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
>
Yes. Here's another example of your cowardice:
Hank Sienzant
Dec 7, 2023, 5:23:40 PM12/7/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 4:43:35 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Your theory ...
>
> Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Your theory ...
>
> Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
I’ll await your clarifications and we can proceed from there.
All the best, wishing you good tidings.
…Spam deleted…
Ben Holmes
Dec 7, 2023, 5:25:06 PM12/7/23
to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:23:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 4:43:35?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Your theory ...
>>
>> Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
>
>Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
Nope. QUOTE him, or be proven a coward. Just like your cowardice
here:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 4:43:35?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Your theory ...
>>
>> Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
>
>Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
here:
Hank Sienzant
Dec 8, 2023, 12:55:21 PM12/8/23
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:25:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:23:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 4:43:35?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Your theory ...
> >>
> >> Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
> >
> >Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:23:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 4:43:35?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Your theory ...
> >>
> >> Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
> >
> >Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
I’ll await your clarifications and we can proceed from there.
All the best, wishing you good tidings.
All the best, wishing you good tidings.
> Nope. QUOTE him, or be proven a coward.
Ah, so as always, you decline to discuss the assassination even when invited to do so, and in lieu of that discussion, substitute calling me names. Color me not surprised.
…Spam deleted…
Ben Holmes
Dec 11, 2023, 10:21:29 AM12/11/23
to
0 new messages