Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
    Just show me another car, (other than Inspector Sawyer's car), that just sat on the Elm St Extension for at least 3+Hrs after the Kill Shot. And this "getaway" car was sitting in a clearly posted, "NO PARKING At Any Time" Zone.

So you think only getaway cars park in NO PARKING zones.
2
As is your SOP, you try to shift the burden of proof to others to disprove your unfounded claims. You make so many ridiculous assumptions and expect everyone else to disprove them. You have assumed the car in question was a getaway car with no evidence that it was. You have assumed the DPD had a keen interest in this car with no evidence that they did. Now you expect me to prove they did not impound the car. Do I need to prove other cars in and around Dealey Plaza were not impounded. You have done nothing to establish this car was a getaway car nor have you established the DPD showed an interest in this car. I have no burden to disprove something you have never proven. I can simply dismiss your claims as another in a long line of baseless conspiracy theories.

    Just show me another car, (other than Inspector Sawyer's car), that just sat on the Elm St Extension for at least 3+Hrs after the Kill Shot. And this "getaway" car was sitting in a clearly posted, "NO PARKING At Any Time" Zone.
3

   DUNCAN - Thanks. As detailed by Trask in "Pictures Of The Pain", I believe the train yard footage and other filmed segments in front of the TSBD were filmed by Don Cook KTVT-TV.
4

-- The Business Plot to depose FDR in 1933 involved numerous Wall Street high rollers who approached a retired Marine Corps general about replacing FDR as president. Luckily for FDR, that general, Smedley Butler, blew the whistle on the plot. The McCormack–Dickstein Committee investigated the matter and concluded "there is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."


This is exactly what would have happened if anyone inside the government had tried to put together a conspiracy to kill JFK.
5


You know very little about the case and repeatedly avoid dealing with contrary facts by either making erroneous appeals to authority or engaging in circular reasoning. It is clear you have done minimal reading on the case and have only read one side.

What you call facts are actually factoids. Made up problems with the evidence presented by the WC and the HSCA FPP. Your objections and those of all CTs are quite comical.
Quote

"Actual experts," huh? Let's see:

Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.

No one disputes JFK's brains were blown out.
Quote

Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

An anthropologist is not an expert in forensic medicine. The FPP were. They were far more qualifed than Douglas Ubelaker to determine the nature of gunshot wounds. Their unanimous opinion trumps that of an anthropologist.
Quote

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.

The FPP unanimously disagreed.
Quote

Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.

Mantik is not an expert in forensic pathology. No qualified forensic pathologist who has reviewed the autopsy materials disputes the findings of the original autopsy team or the FPP that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from the rear.
Quote

Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8). I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:

Frazier testified that the Carcano ammo he tested had an average muzzle velocity of 2165 fps. That was low AS COMPARED TO other ammo such a .270 Winchester or 8mm Mauser. His description of the Carcano velocity was as follows:

"The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military--it is an established military weapon."

The Clark panel did not attempt to calculate the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's head. It was a team of physicians to whom the term high velocity might mean something very different than to a ballistics expert such as Robert Frazier. Their opinion of a high velocity bullet was based solely on the massive damage the bullet caused to JFK's head.
Quote

Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)


Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert?

He was an expert in anthropolgy.
Quote

His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:

It is not surprising that a team of forensic medical examiners would be dismissive of an anthropologist's opinion on the nature of a gunshot wound.
Quote

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

And on and on and on we could go.

That won't be necessary. You have embarrassed yourself enough by the "experts" you have cited.

If you needed somebody to work on your car, would you call a plumber?
Quote


This nonsense alone proves you have no business discussing the JFK case.

Even back in 1991 when I was a relative newbie to the JFKA discourse, I was running circles around you on the old Prodigy forum. I've learned quite a lot in the 35 years since. You on the other hand seem to have been stuck in neutral the past 35 years.
Quote

You can't even get basic stuff right. FYI, Wecht did not concur with the single-bullet theory,

I never said he did. Nice strawman argument
Quote

did not concur that only three shots were fired (partly because he correctly insisted that Connally must have been hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back),

Keep those strawman arguments coming.
Quote

did not concur that the residual defect could not be an additional entry wound, and did not concur that only one bullet hit the head, among other objections that he raised. Good grief, have you not read Wecht's dissent to the FPP's findings? It's in 7 HSCA 199-209.

Wecht's opinion that there were more than 3 shots fired and that JFK's head was struck more than once were not based on his expertise in forensic medicine. He based those opinions largely on his viewing of the Z-film. His medical expertise did not make him an expert in film analysis. I would gladly wager that in his entire career as a medical examiner, he not once was aided by a film of the shooting in rendering his opinion. During the mock TV trial in which Wecht testified, Bugliosi shredded his opinions on cross examination.
Quote

Wecht specifically argued that the forensic evidence suggested that JFK's head may have been hit by frangible ammo, not just FMJ ammo:

A soft-nose bullet or some other type of relatively frangible ammunition that would have disintegrated upon impact could have struck the right side of JFK's head in the parietal region Inasmuch as there is a large defect of JFK's skull in this area it is not possible to rule out the existence of a separate entrance wound at the site. Since this kind of ammunition would not have penetrated deeply into the brain there would be no evidence of damage to the left cerebral hemisphere nor would there be fragments of such a missile deposited in the left side of the brain Also there would not be a separate exit wound if this kind of ammunition had been used. (7 HSCA 201)

"Could have". Now there's some compelling evidence. Where is the evidence for where that bullet struck JFK's head? Is this the CT's Magic Bullet Theory?
Quote

Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches.

Which doesn't alter the fact the bullet that struck JFK's head was fired from above and behind him. [/quote]

They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.[/quote]

Nobody disputes the miltary pahologists were a poor choice to do a medico-legal autopsy but we don't get a do-over on that mistake. Even so they did provide enough evidence in the form of photos and x-rays that the FPP was able to concur with their finding that the two shots which struck JFK were fired from behind him.
Quote


They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

The Z-film shows JFK was leaning over when the bullet struck his head. He was also leaning to his left.
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
Quote

Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.

Can you cite any member of the original autopsy team or the FPP that disputes a bullet struck JFK in the back of the head?
Quote

This polemic again proves you don't know what you're talking about and are not to be taken seriously.

I know enough not to try to substitute my opinion of the medical evidence for the opinions of qualified experts in the field of forensic medicine. You seem to have no qualms about doing that.
Quote


I'm not sure how you have failed to grasp that I've been talking about much, much more than my own analysis of the autopsy photos. I've barely mentioned my own observations about the autopsy photos. Somehow you have missed the fact that I've cited (1) statements regarding the autopsy brain photos made by recognized experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives,

You have cited anthropologists for their opinions about forensic medicine. Maybe if we were discussing the case of a caveman who clubbed another caveman to death, they would be a good choice.
Quote

(2) Baden's statement to Bugliosi, (3) the accounts of several eyewitnesses who got good, close looks at JFK's brain, (4) statements by witnesses who saw brain tissue and fluid from JFK's brain splattered on numerous surfaces,

Such as JBC who said on numerous occasions that he and Nellie were showered with blood and brain material.
Quote

(5) statements by forensic experts on the behavior of FMJ vs. frangible bullets,

Which of these experts said there was evidence of a frangible bullet striking JFK's head from any direction?
Quote

and (6) statements by numerous experts on the obvious conflicts between the skull x-rays and the brain photos.

None of the "experts" you cited were qualified medical examiners with years of training and experience in the field of forensic pathology.
Quote

There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.

Yes there is. Most of those people are woefully uninformed about the actual evidence in the JFKA. Most of what they think they know about it, they got from Oliver Stone's fictional movie about the event.
6
You seem to be patient zero for a new strain of TDS, Putin Derangement Syndrome.

How ironic, coming from John "Zombified" Corbett, who, like the traitorous orange turd known as Donald J. Trump, thinks Vladimir Putin's a great guy.
7
This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.

This polemic shows that not only is your knowledge of the JFK case insufficient but that your knowledge of overall assassination history is lacking as well.

-- The conspiracy that killed Julius Caesar involved dozens of prominent people, including a number of members of the Roman senate. You can find the extensive nature of the plot that killed Caesar discussed in countless scholarly books.

-- The conspiracy that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which sparked World War I, was orchestrated by a network of South Slav nationalists and was directly facilitated by rogue elements within the Serbian military intelligence establishment.

The assassination team was helped by the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group, by the chief of the military intelligence section of the Serbian general staff, and by numerous officers in Serbian intelligence. Serbian intelligence officers gave the assassins access to the same clandestine network of safe houses and agents that they used to smuggle weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary.

The assassins and key members of the clandestine network were prosecuted, and over a dozen other people were indicted for their roles in the plot. In total, 25 people were indicted, and scholars agree that many others took part in the plot but were not prosecuted because they could not be identified with enough certainty to warrant formal charges.

-- Although it did involve an assassination, the Iran-Contra conspiracy was a White House-level plot that involved hundreds of low-level operatives who knew little or nothing about the overall plot and involved at least one dozen high-level officials who were the prime conspirators.

-- The Business Plot to depose FDR in 1933 involved numerous Wall Street high rollers who approached a retired Marine Corps general about replacing FDR as president. Luckily for FDR, that general, Smedley Butler, blew the whistle on the plot. The McCormack–Dickstein Committee investigated the matter and concluded "there is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."

Butler revealed to the McCormack–Dickstein Committee that that Wall Street broker Gerald C. MacGuire attempted to recruit him to lead a coup, promising him an army of 500,000 men for a march on D.C., and financial backing. Butler said the pretext for the coup would be that FDR's health was failing.

-- The assassination of high-level Chilean government official Orlando Letelier, ordered by Chile's dictator Augusto Pinochet, involved numerous people, including agents of the Chilean secret police. The conspirators assassinated Letelier while he was living in the U.S. because he was an outspoken critic of the Pinochet regime. Letelier had previously served as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Interior Minister, Defense Minister, and as Chile's ambassador to the United States.

The Pinochet regime undertook an extensive cover-up operation to hide its role in Letelier's death. The U.S. DOJ documented the Pinochet regime's extensive cover-up efforts. The cover-up operation was even given a formal name: "Operación Mascarada."
8
A key fact to remember about the autopsy materials is that they were originally sealed by executive order for 75 years, so the plotters assumed no one would see the autopsy photos and x-rays until 2038. Similarly, all the unpublished HSCA materials, including the unpublished interviews with the autopsy witnesses and the Parkland witnesses, were originally sealed for 50 years, so no one was supposed to see them until 2029.

This could very well explain why the 6.5 mm object had not yet been added to the AP skull x-ray when the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966. They said nothing about the object in their report on the review. They could not have missed it. It is the most obvious, readily visible "fragment" on the AP x-ray. If they did see it during their review and chose to say nothing about it, this would be a damning, revealing omission. The first time anyone mentioned seeing the 6.5 mm object was when the Clark Panel examined the autopsy materials and issued their report in 1968, and this was also when the rear head entry wound's location was moved upward by an astonishing 4 inches.

But then along came Oliver Stone's movie JFK, which caused such a furor that it led to the passage of the 1992 JFK Records Act and to the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

But WC apologists seem to live in a world where the 1992 JFK Records Act and all the ARRB disclosures never happened.

Most LNs I know welcome the ARRB disclosures. We knew there would be nothing game changing about them and there wasn't. No smoking gun proving a conspiracy. Nothing to indicate anybody but Oswald took part in the assassination. CTs now need to come up with a new excuse for why they have no credible evidence of a conspiracy.
9
Please read just a little more carefully before you fire off your knee-jerk responses. I have never suggested for one nanosecond I thought the SBT was impossible. I believe it is problematical but could certainly be correct. Cliff Varnell always insists the alignment of the wounds and the holes in the clothing is IMPOSSIBLE, CASE CLOSED, NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT, YOU'RE JUST STUPID IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!!! My reference to Cliff was an inside joke for those who have followed his longstanding rant. But because you are a fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot, you fire off your knee-jerk fundamentalist quasi-religious LN zealot responses without even reading carefully. You are as whacked-out as any CTer I've ever encountered.

OK, explain why the SBT is "problematical".
10
It's always amusing to see amateur sleuths try to apply their limited knowledge to a highly technical field. I prefer to go with what actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.

You know very little about the case and repeatedly avoid dealing with contrary facts by either making erroneous appeals to authority or engaging in circular reasoning. It is clear you have done minimal reading on the case and have only read one side.

"Actual experts," huh? Let's see:

Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.

Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.

Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.

Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ). I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:

Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)


Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert? His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

And on and on and on we could go.

The FPP, composed of some of the most respected medical examiners of their day including WC critic Cyril Wecht, UNANIMOUSLY concurred with the original finding that JFK was struck by two shots fired from above and behind although they did reposition where they thought the entry wound in the back of the head was.

We have a choice here. We can go with the FPP or we can go with MTG? Not a tough call for me.

This nonsense alone proves you have no business discussing the JFK case. You can't even get basic stuff right. FYI, Wecht did not concur with the single-bullet theory, did not concur that only three shots were fired (partly because he correctly insisted that Connally must have been hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back), did not concur that the residual defect could not be an additional entry wound, and did not concur that only one bullet hit the head, among other objections that he raised. Good grief, have you not read Wecht's dissent to the FPP's findings? It's in 7 HSCA 199-209.

Wecht specifically argued that the forensic evidence suggested that JFK's head may have been hit by frangible ammo, not just FMJ ammo:

A soft-nose bullet or some other type of relatively frangible ammunition that would have disintegrated upon impact could have struck the right side of JFK's head in the parietal region Inasmuch as there is a large defect of JFK's skull in this area it is not possible to rule out the existence of a separate entrance wound at the site. Since this kind of ammunition would not have penetrated deeply into the brain there would be no evidence of damage to the left cerebral hemisphere nor would there be fragments of such a missile deposited in the left side of the brain Also there would not be a separate exit wound if this kind of ammunition had been used. (7 HSCA 201)

Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches. They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.

They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he was publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.

It's truly amazing how an amateur such as yourself looking at just the few autopsy photos that were leaked to the public is able to see things that were missed by a panel of some of the most highly regarded forensic medical examiners in the country who had access to all the autopsy photos and x-rays and which were of much higher quality than those that you have seen.

This polemic again proves you don't know what you're talking about and are not to be taken seriously. I'm not sure how you have failed to grasp that I've been talking about much, much more than my own analysis of the autopsy photos. I've barely mentioned my own observations about the autopsy photos. Somehow you have missed the fact that I've cited (1) statements regarding the autopsy brain photos made by recognized experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, (2) Baden's statement to Bugliosi, (3) the accounts of several eyewitnesses who got good, close looks at JFK's brain, (4) statements by witnesses who saw brain tissue and fluid from JFK's brain splattered on numerous surfaces, (5) statements by forensic experts on the behavior of FMJ vs. frangible bullets, and (6) statements by numerous experts on the obvious conflicts between the skull x-rays and the brain photos.

There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10