JFK Assassination Forum

The best evidence we have is the Z-film and any witness statement that conflicts with that should be dismissed. Because won't do that, you reach the ridiculous conclusion that JBC wasn't hit until Z270 and that the reason his is doubled over and dipping hard to his right is because he was trying to see JFK. I suppose you could have come up with a sillier interpretation of the Z-film, but it is hard to imagine how.

There is no evidence provided in the zfilm that is inconsistent with JBC not reacting to his chest wound before z255. His actions are quite consistent with the rest of the evidence, which is that there has only been one shot to that point.  We have Altgens who was there and took the picture and confirms that. The problem is not with the zfilm. The problem is that the zfilm alone cannot tell you where the second shot occurred.

I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.

The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?

Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.

The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.

No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.

I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).

He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."

If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.

This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.

Once again, you make so much more sense when you are wearing your LN cap. It makes me wonder why you want to keep switching caps. Those CT caps you don must be so tight that are restricting blood flow to your brain. That doesn't seem to be a problem when you have your LN cap on.

I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.

I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:

. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)

The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?

Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.

The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.

Finally, a word about George O'Toole himself. As usual, since O'Toole reached the conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, Lance Payette seeks to minimize his qualifications, describing him as "a CIA computer specialist." Actually, he was a bit more than a computer specialist, although that in itself is a valid, relevant qualification. O'Toole served as the chief of the CIA's Problem Analysis Branch.

No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.

I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).

He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."

If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.

This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.

Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:

One, the autopsy doctors committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that started a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) lower, (2) that was in a different bone of the skull (parietal vs. occipital), and (3) that ran at a downward angle instead of an upward angle from the back of the head, even though they had the EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the lambda as reference points (keep in mind they reflected the scalp so they could examine the wound in the skull). A first-year medical student would not make such a mind-boggling blunder.

Two, the autopsy doctors saw no low fragment trail. They saw no trail that ran from the EOP to the right eyebrow but falsely said they did (1) because they wanted to strengthen the case for the EOP entry site, (2) because the high fragment trail did not align with the EOP site, and (3) because there was no wound on the back of the head that they could associate with the high fragment trail.

Three, the low fragment trail was removed from the autopsy x-rays, or its fragments were removed from the skull and the skull was then x-rayed again, because some of the people involved in the medical cover-up recognized that the low fragment trail, like the EOP entry site, would pose unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory.

I lean toward the third option. The third option would explain the 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm fragments seen near the right orbit on the right lateral skull x-ray. Those fragments are far removed from the high fragment trail. There are no fragments below them or to their left on the lateral x-ray, and they are at least 1 inch below the high fragment trail. How did they get there? They could be the remnant of the low fragment trail, which Humes said went to a point at the top part of the right orbit (the supraorbital ridge).

At least some WC apologists understand that it is wildly unlikely that three pathologists, one of whom was a board-certified forensic pathologist, could have mistaken an EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail for the high fragment trail when they examined the lateral skull x-rays, especially since they reexamined the skull x-rays in 1966 for five hours and said the x-rays and the photos confirmed the autopsy report's findings.

But, WC apologists also don't want to consider the possibility that the autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail, and they of course know that the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, and that they again said nothing about it after they reexamined the skull x-rays for five hours in 1966.

Yet, WC apologists find even more acceptable the possibility that the low fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays and/or from the skull itself.   

If MTG wants to argue that the frontal neck wound is an entrance wound, he needs to explain why there are two entrance wounds, no exit wounds, and no bullets found in the body. If he can't do that, there is no point in even discussing the other issues he has raised.

My guess is he will simply do what he always does when confronted with inconvenient truths. He will simply dodge the question and move on to other silly arguments.