Discovery Channel Specials - Well, I Guess That Ties It Up...
Ms. Burb
both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
Respectfully,
MsBurb
Burb's Buck & Buntline Inn (B3) http://burbsbuckandbuntlineinn.blogspot.com/
2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)
http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
Gil Jesus
> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
Gil Jesus
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
John Schwanik
would air "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" which was pro-conspiracy, and "JFK: The
Ruby Connection" with was somewhat anti-conspiracy back to back.
Also I wanted to comment on Gary Mack. Now I respect Mack's approach but
it's again it's somewhat confusing that he disproves many conspiracy
theories throughout the "Unsolved History" specials yet he personally
believes in the HSCA acoustics evidence of two shooters.
As one of the announcers said: "the debate will continue!"
Spence
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
>
>
> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
I think Gary Mack is finally coming to the conclusions that we all
came to years ago.
cdddraftsman
> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
>
>
> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
Well it wouldn't be the first time the American mobocracy prefered to
listen to the Soviets rather than to their own USG . 26 US citizens *
giving away our secrets to the USSR while working at Los Alimos during
WW2 because they thought 'Uncle Joe' Stalin ** was a nice guy . It's
digusting !
Keynotes :
* See PBS 'Red Files'
** One of , if not the greatest mass murderer's of the 20th century .
It's a wrap alright . Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond any reasonable
doubt .
tl
bigdog
> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
>
>
> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
Didn't see The Ruby Connection, but ITTC was well done with the exception
of a technical error (placing Jackie in the wrong place). This error in no
way affected the key finding that the headshot came from behind. Field
tests invariably come down on the side of the lone assassin theory and
invariably the CTs will take exception to the results because those
results are imcompatable with their pet theories. Of course, don't ever
ask a CT to conduct their own tests to prove their theories. That is
considered unreasonable.
MsBurb
Like the LN theory makes JFK any less dead...
What's so gosh darn terrible by admitting that although many factions
may have had it in for BOTH the brothers, that a wacko extremist dude
got off a head shot first...evidence doesn't lie, because it doesn't
need to...
IF there are any CTers out there who would like to disprove what those
specials demonstrated, MsBurb is ALL EARS (rather eyes on a Forum, I
guess)!!!
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well.....I've been researching the medical evidence - it's a real
fright.
I've always been puzzled that so many law enforcement and medical
doctors describe an exit wound on the back of the head - why wouldn't
someone describe the same wound in the autopsy report, even if by
accident?
So I was struck by an interview with 20 year Navy veteran Douglas
Horne, who served as Chief Analyst for Medical Records, AARB.
In his words:
"....two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill....had been present at the
autopsy...and....were not only willing to be deposed, they couldn't
wait.... (b)oth men found the (photographic) images of the back of the
head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they
vividly remembered. O'Neill opined under oath that the images appeared
"doctored", by which he meant that the head had been put back together
by the doctors. Sibert testified that the head looked 'reconstructed'
- he actually used that word!"
Eh - the 2 FBI agents who were at the autopsy didn't think the photos
was an accurate representation of what they saw?
I really want to think of the medical evidence as being simple and
straight-forward, and thus Oswald's guilty verdict, but the more I
look, the more evidence of falsehood I find.
Sad - and so my investigation continues.
bigdog
The History Channel has been all over the map with its various
presentations. Little if anything that appears on THC is original
material. It is usually recycled programming from other sources.
Mainly, it's filler. They present programming 24/7 but there simply
isn't enough original material to fill all those hours so they take
what they can get from where ever they can get it, rerun it as often
as they can, and they really don't care too much what it says. They
just need to put eyeballs in front of the boob tube so they can sell
the corn flakes and the mouthwash. It is what TV has been all about
since day one. The technology might change, but it's still about the
bottom line.
Gil Jesus
> On Nov 23, 2:40�pm, John Schwanik <jschw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well... I'll say this, it's pretty confusing that the Discovery Channel
> > would air "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" which was pro-conspiracy, and "JFK: The
> > Ruby Connection" with was somewhat anti-conspiracy back to back.
>
> presentations. Little if anything that appears on THC is original
> material. It is usually recycled programming from other sources.
> Mainly, it's filler. They present programming 24/7 but there simply
> isn't enough original material to fill all those hours so they take
> what they can get from where ever they can get it, rerun it as often
> as they can, and they really don't care too much what it says. They
> just need to put eyeballs in front of the boob tube so they can sell
> the corn flakes and the mouthwash. It is what TV has been all about
> since day one. The technology might change, but it's still about the
> bottom line.
The bottom line is your lack of reading comprehension.
The guy was talking about the Discovery Channel, not the History
Channel, Moron.
Please try to keep up.
Gil Jesus
>
> > Well... I'll say this, it's pretty confusing that the Discovery Channel
> > would air "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" which was pro-conspiracy, and "JFK: The
> > Ruby Connection" with was somewhat anti-conspiracy back to back.
>
> presentations. Little if anything that appears on THC is original
> material. It is usually recycled programming from other sources.
> Mainly, it's filler. They present programming 24/7 but there simply
> isn't enough original material to fill all those hours so they take
> what they can get from where ever they can get it, rerun it as often
> as they can, and they really don't care too much what it says. They
> just need to put eyeballs in front of the boob tube so they can sell
> the corn flakes and the mouthwash. It is what TV has been all about
> since day one. The technology might change, but it's still about the
> bottom line.
The man makes a comment about the Discovery Channel and retard starts
talking about the History Channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Channel
NO FRIGGIN CLUE
John Canal
>fright.
>I've always been puzzled that so many law enforcement and medical
>doctors describe an exit wound on the back of the head - why wouldn't
>someone describe the same wound in the autopsy report, even if by
>accident?
Have you ever considered the "possibility" that they didn't think it would
have been a good idea to descrbe a BOH wound--even one that they were
certain was collateral damage from the rear entering bullet--for fear such
a wound could be misinterpreted as evidence there had been a 2nd
shooter......and a conspiracy, possibly orchestrated by the Soviet Union?
In fact--IMHO, to the chagrin of all the hard line-think-inside-the-box
LNs around here--that scenario explains a lot.
For instance, it explains why there were no photos taken of the BOH when
the body was first received nor any of the BOH as soon as the scalp was
reflected. And it also explains why four months later, when the
investigation seemed to be pinning the whole dastardly deed on LHO, Humes
testified--almost without notice that--they had seen "cerebellum" when the
body was first recieved. Note that that super-subtle revelaton conflicts
with the autopsy report's "...somewhat into the occipital..." IOW, he was
testifying that the autopsy report understated the extent of the BOH
wound, because in order for them to see cerebellum, such a wound would
have had to extend down to near the EOP...way past "somewhat".
>So I was struck by an interview with 20 year Navy veteran Douglas
>Horne, who served as Chief Analyst for Medical Records, AARB.
>In his words:
>"....two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill....had been present at the
>autopsy...and....were not only willing to be deposed, they couldn't
>wait.... (b)oth men found the (photographic) images of the back of the
>head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they
>vividly remembered.
The images weren't inconsistent with the actual wounds, because the images
were taken very late in the procedure....IOW, had those images been taken
when the body was first received, then yes--of course--there would have
been a conflict. But, again, there were no images taken (see above for
why) and no conflict exists....and if Lifton, Horne and others who allege
that the images were forged would do their hoework, they' realize that.
In fact here's a good way of pinning down just how late in the night the
images were taken. Any researcher, even if they are among the hardliners,
who agrees that the bullet entered where the autopsy docs said it
did--near the EOP--and also agrees that the red splotch in the BOH images
is the entry (like the title of those images, that has that red splotch
centered, indicates), instead of some other anomly like dried blood, ###
HAS ### to admit the scalp was stretched before the images were taken. And
why on earth would I say that? Here's why.
First, Humes said the scalp was stretched. Second, if the bullet entered
near the EOP that'd mean it pierced the scalp about 2-3 inches above the
hairline (that's where the EOP generally is) and IN THE IMAGES THAT SCALP
ENTRY IS OBVIOUSLY 5-6 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE. Sooooooo, to you
researchers, whether you're an LN or CT, if you agree the autopsy docs
didn't mislocate the entry by an alleged whopping four inches, and the red
splotch in the images is the entry then you must--logically--agree with my
out-of-the-box conclusion that the autopsists and the morticians weren't
hallucinating when they said the scalp was streched and that those images
were taken ### AFTER ### they did so.
Bottom line..those images are hardly in conflict with what JFK's wounds
looked like at PH and when he was first received at Bethesda!
>O'Neill opined under oath that the images appeared
>"doctored", by which he meant that the head had been put back together
>by the doctors. Sibert testified that the head looked 'reconstructed'
It had been. The images are authentic...just not taken when most think
they were.
>- he actually used that word!"
>Eh - the 2 FBI agents who were at the autopsy didn't think the photos
>was an accurate representation of what they saw?
>I really want to think of the medical evidence as being simple and
>straight-forward, and thus Oswald's guilty verdict, but the more I
>look, the more evidence of falsehood I find.
>Sad - and so my investigation continues.
I've been at that for nearly 10 years...almost entirey focusing on the
head shot...maybe some day your investigation will result in conclusions
similar to mine?
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
pjfk
My take on ITTC:
http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_pmb.html
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
jas
Well stated.
I feel most of their original historical reenactments, when they do spend
the money making them (made-for-TV type film making, if you will), are
quite well-done production-wise.
Actually, the JFK conspiracy shows are now just a part of American
historical landscape as the shows supporting the LN, e.g., TMWKK. So they,
in their oddball way, belong there, in my humble opinion.
Like Stone's movie, we just don't have to concur with their conspiracist
angle, obviously.
jbarge
Always a pleasure to consider a theory free of invective, something I
strive for but at which I sometimes fail.
I have no reason and certainly have never suggested the photographs
themselves were falsified, though what exactly they show is open to
question.
I have pondered your post, though with small children in my lap it is
truncated.
I have always thought the 4 inch error to be suspicious - of what
exactly will have to wait.
But grown medical professionals with access to a ruler can obviously
accurately measure a bullet wound.
So either something very wrong or something very bad went down that
night.
I have my suspicions about the brain and the alleged photos of the
brain as well - why would the weight of a heavily damaged brain be
1500 grams, the normal size of full grown man's grey matter?
It appears you are suggesting that they manipulated the scalp and took
the photo in an attempt to suggest a more "Lone Nut" type of head
wound?
And that they did so not because there was actual evidence of an exit
wound of a grassy knoll shot, but because "collateral damage" might
have been open to the GN interpertation?
If this is correct - and please feel free to clarify - I remain
skeptical of the motive.
In other words, the manipulation from the "late" photo session is
extremely believable to me, but doing so merely because someone
"might" interperet honest photos and autopsy report seems - to me at
least - an overreaction, to say the least, and somewhat pointless as
the photos were unlikely to surface.
In other words there wasn't a need to falsify the evidence - unless of
course the evidence DID lead somewhere they didn't want it to go.
And of course with your theory the photo - since it isn't tampered
with - shows the body as it was in Parkland & Bethesda.
But with your theory the head wound itself was tampered with, eh?
John Canal
jbarge says...
>
>On Nov 24, 8:55=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >Well.....I've been researching the medical evidence - it's a real
>> >fright.
>> >I've always been puzzled that so many law enforcement and medical
>> >doctors describe an exit wound on the back of the head - why wouldn't
>> >someone describe the same wound in the autopsy report, even if by
>> >accident?
>>
>d
>> have been a good idea to descrbe a BOH wound--even one that they were
>h
>> a wound could be misinterpreted as evidence there had been a 2nd
>> shooter......and a conspiracy, possibly orchestrated by the Soviet Union?
>> In fact--IMHO, to the chagrin of all the hard line-think-inside-the-box
>> LNs around here--that scenario explains a lot.
>>
>> For instance, it explains why there were no photos taken of the BOH when
>> the body was first received nor any of the BOH as soon as the scalp was
>> reflected. And it also explains why four months later, when the
>> investigation seemed to be pinning the whole dastardly deed on LHO, Humes
>e
>> body was first recieved. Note that that super-subtle revelaton conflicts
>> with the autopsy report's "...somewhat into the occipital..." IOW, he was
>> testifying that the autopsy report understated the extent of the BOH
>> wound, because in order for them to see cerebellum, such a wound would
>> have had to extend down to near the EOP...way past "somewhat".
>>
>> >So I was struck by an interview with 20 year Navy veteran Douglas
>> >Horne, who served as Chief Analyst for Medical Records, AARB.
>> >In his words:
>> >"....two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill....had been present at the
>> >autopsy...and....were not only willing to be deposed, they couldn't
>> >wait.... (b)oth men found the (photographic) images of the back of the
>> >head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they
>> >vividly remembered.
>>
>s
>> were taken very late in the procedure....IOW, had those images been taken
>> when the body was first received, then yes--of course--there would have
>> been a conflict. But, again, there were no images taken (see above for
>> why) and no conflict exists....and if Lifton, Horne and others who allege
>> that the images were forged would do their hoework, they' realize that.
>>
>> In fact here's a good way of pinning down just how late in the night the
>> images were taken. Any researcher, even if they are among the hardliners,
>> who agrees that the bullet entered where the autopsy docs said it
>> did--near the EOP--and also agrees that the red splotch in the BOH images
>> is the entry (like the title of those images, that has that red splotch
>> centered, indicates), instead of some other anomly like dried blood, ###
>d
>> why on earth would I say that? Here's why.
>>
>> First, Humes said the scalp was stretched. Second, if the bullet entered
>> near the EOP that'd mean it pierced the scalp about 2-3 inches above the
>> hairline (that's where the EOP generally is) and IN THE IMAGES THAT SCALP
>> ENTRY IS OBVIOUSLY 5-6 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE. Sooooooo, to you
>> researchers, whether you're an LN or CT, if you agree the autopsy docs
>d
>> splotch in the images is the entry then you must--logically--agree with m=
Not exactly what I'm suggesting....I wasn't clear. This is of course
speculation but I've tried to figure out what their motives were based on
the facts.
I don't think they covered up a hole in the BOH to make sure such a wound
wasn't misinterpreted as proof there was a frontal shooter. Because of the
ossibility there was going to be an open-casket funeral, They (the
morticians with the autopsists' assistance) neded to cover up the large
hole that was mostly parietal on the right side where the scalp and skull
had been blown out.
Taking advantage of the fact that none of the BOH scalp (the BOH skull was
fragmented with gaps between the pieces and the scalp was torn creating
the infamous BOH wound) was "missing" they stretched that BOH scalp to
help cover up the right-parietal area where the scalp "was missing". In
the BOH images you can see the autopsist is holding a small handfull of
scalp over the area [right-parietal]where the scalp and skull had been
blown out....I strongly believe that small handfull of scalp came (was
stretched) from the occipital.
So the images they show with an intact BOH scalp may not necessarily have
been taken to decieve...but just to show the entry after the scalp had
been stretched forward to close the right-parietal opening for the
open-casket funeral.
Also, with the BOH scalp tear sutured closed when they took those images,
the entry was more perceptible.
As I implied before, though, I think there was some deception going on,
i.e. no photos of the BOH when the body was first received nor any of the
BOH as soon as the scalp had been reflected, not to mention them leaving
the fact they had seen cerebellum when the body was first received out
of--and understating the extent of the occipital damage ["somewhat"]
in--the autopsy report. I would also include in any discussion about
autopsy-related deception the fact that certain important witnesses were
not asked to testify before the WC, e.g. O'Neill, Custer, Stringer,
Burkley, Ebersole, to name a few.
>And that they did so not because there was actual evidence of an exit
>wound of a grassy knoll shot, but because "collateral damage" might
>have been open to the GN interpertation?
That's pretty much what I think.
>If this is correct - and please feel free to clarify - I remain
>skeptical of the motive.
>In other words, the manipulation from the "late" photo session is
>extremely believable to me, but doing so merely because someone
>"might" interperet honest photos and autopsy report seems - to me at
>least - an overreaction, to say the least, and somewhat pointless as
>the photos were unlikely to surface.
Have you read all you can from the record about Admiral Burkley? The
picture I get from what I've read is that he was paranoid, some what
out-of-control during the autopsy, but taking charge anyway, and--like
adding a spark to gasoline--evidenty a conspiracy (multiple shooter)
believer until he died.
Thereore, I don't think you can assume everything that was done during the
autopsy was based on rational thinking....and that's not to say all
CTs--or even yu fence-sitters--are irrational.
Oh, I also think it was Burkley's brainstorm to have Ebersole add the 6.5
mm opacity to the AP X-ray (to move the entry up so that it seemed more
consistent--than Humes' low entry--with the fatal shot being fired from
the SN). As you may recall, both Custer and Ebersole testified Ebersole
was summoned to the White House after the assassination....precisely where
Burkley had his office.
>In other words there wasn't a need to falsify the evidence - unless of
>course the evidence DID lead somewhere they didn't want it to go.
IMO, by the time the autopsy was going on, there hadn't been enough time
to get a grip on where the evidence was going....I doubt anyone with any
brains would bet much there had been only one shooter and no conspiracy.
They certainly knew one thing--that pictures of a BOH wound could be
interpreted or misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shooter. And
there's no way they could know for sure when the photos would be released.
On that point note that Hues said [not his exact words] the pictures would
clarify some of his unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous entries in the
autopsy report...so when he said that he must have thought the pictures
would be available at least in the not-too-distant future.
>And of course with your theory the photo - since it isn't tampered
>with - shows the body as it was in Parkland & Bethesda.
>But with your theory the head wound itself was tampered with, eh?
Not really "tampered with"...they needed to repair the head anyway for an
open-casket funeral.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net