21
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When are the CTs here going to tell us who, specifically, killed JFK?
« Last post by Sean Kneringer on Yesterday at 08:11:28 PM »The old chestnut: rogue elements in the CIA.
Recent Posts
22
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
« Last post by Tommy Shanks on Yesterday at 07:37:01 PM »I believe the 2+ minute gap between our seeing the Bogus Motorcycle Cop heading Down the Elm St Ext and the Military Man then coming Up/Exiting the Elm St Ext and entering the train yard connects these 2 individuals. The Elm St Extension and the Train Yard have been overlooked for 62+ yrs. They are JFK Assassination Research virgin ground along with being geographically connected.
Thanks, Royell Storing. I hadn't yet laughed out loud so hard today that I spit out my coffee until reading more of your totally unsupported speculation about imaginary police imposters. Glad to see the latest addition, "Military Man," join your fantasy ranks!
23
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When are the CTs here going to tell us who, specifically, killed JFK?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:36:56 PM »When are the CTs here going to tell us who, specifically, killed JFK? "All we can say for sure is that it had to be the evil, evil, Deep State!" LOL!
I'm guessing you haven't cracked the pages of any of the responsible, scholarly works on the JFK assassination written in the last 40 years.
Some questions for you to ponder:
Are you aware that some Mafia leaders were overheard on FBI wiretaps talking about wanting to see JFK dead before the assassination?
Are you aware that an FBI informant reported hearing Mafia leader Santo Trafficante say that JFK was going to be "hit" before the assassination?
Are you aware that Frank Ragano, the long-time attorney for Trafficante, revealed in his 1987 memoir that a seriously ill Trafficante, facing emergency heart surgery, told him that he and Marcello were responsible for JFK’s death?
Are you aware that a business associate of Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello told federal authorities that he heard Marcello say he was going to have JFK killed and that the hit would involve "“setting up a nut to take the blame"?
Are you aware that an FBI informant reported that he heard Marcello admit to being involved in JFK's death?
Are you aware that Mafia man Eugene Hale Brading was arrested while coming out of the Dal-Tex Building shortly after the assassination because he seemed to be acting suspiciously? (Once at the police station, he gave the police a fake name, and the intrepid, uncurious DPD turned him loose when nothing came back about his fake name.)
Are you aware that in 2017 FBI documents were released that showed that Mafia tool Jack Ruby had advance knowledge of the JFK assassination?
Are you aware that two witnesses reported that in 1973 CIA hitman David Sanchez Morales proudly admitted to them that he and other CIA people "took care" of Kennedy in retribution for Kennedy's alleged treason in the Bay of Pigs operation? The two witnesses were Morales' lifelong friend, Ruben Carbajal, and Morales' attorney, Bob Walton.
Are you aware that Mark Wyatt, who served as a deputy to JFK-hating CIA officer William King Harvey, told his children and a French journalist that he saw Harvey on a flight to Dallas in November 1963, and that Harvey made comments to him soon after the assassination that indicated Harvey had either known about the murder in advance or had been involved in it. Wyatt’s daughter urged him to testify to the HSCA, but he could not bring himself to do it because of his sense of loyalty to the CIA.
Of course, given the fact that the Mafia and the CIA were working closely together at the time against Castro's Cuba, it is entirely plausible that anti-JFK elements from both entities teamed up to kill JFK. It is not an either/or situation.
24
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What five anomalies have complicated the investigation over the years?
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 07:05:45 PM »A bullet tumbling backwards.
25
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:02:16 PM »Oh, goody. MGT is playing doctor again.
26
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What five anomalies have complicated the investigation over the years?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 06:59:50 PM »Have you ever watched a "TUMBLING Team"? Do you believe they are facing, "BACKWARD"?
You answered a question with a question. I'll try a third time.
Do you deny that a Carcano bullet will tumble when exiting soft tissue?
27
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What five anomalies have complicated the investigation over the years?
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 06:29:44 PM »I'll type slower this time to make it easier for you to follow. In order for the bullet to strike JBC's wrist while traveling backward, it would have to tumble into that orientation. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive. One depends on the other.
Now, I ask you again. Do you deny that a Carcano bullet will tumble (or yaw if you prefer that term) upon exiting soft tissue?
Have you ever watched a "TUMBLING Team"? Do you believe they are facing, "BACKWARD"?
28
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:23:21 PM »Notice the abject inability of WC defenders to explain the severe conflict between the alleged autopsy brain photos vs. (1) the autopsy skull x-rays, (2) the numerous eyewitness who saw JFK's brain and said it was missing a large amount of tissue (including one of the morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy), and (3) the autopsy report's description of the rear head entry wound.
I should add that Dr. Boswell stated in his HSCA interview that JFK's brain was "so torn up it would not have shown a tract" ("Interview with J. Thornton Boswell," HSCA, 8/16/77, p. 2). Yet the brain in the autopsy brain photos looks nothing like this. The brain in the brain photos has only one laceration, a cut that runs vertically from the end of the occipital lobes to the end of the frontal lobe, with the cerebellum being virtually undamaged, with the rear part of the right occipital lobe being undamaged, with the left occipital lobe being undamaged, and with the left frontal and parietal lobes appearing undamaged.
Also, when the ARRB's executive director and general counsel, Jeremy Gunn, interviewed Dr. Finck and asked him if the cerebellum was damaged, at first Finck said there was "extensive damage," but in the very next breath he said "I can't answer that," and when Gunn asked him again, he again said "I can't answer that" ("Deposition of Pierre A. Finck," ARRB, 5/24/96, p. 104).
Of course, if the cerebellum suffered even moderate damage, the autopsy brain photos must be fake, since they show the cerebellum to be undamaged (with the sole exception of some very minor damage on the bottom--and FPP member Dr. George Loquvam said the brain photos do not even show any bleeding in the cerebellum except for some post-mortem bleeding). Yet, a number of medical witnesses who saw JFK's head wounds in Dallas, including Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, said there was extensive damage to the cerebellum.
The HSCA FPP majority hammered Finck over the autopsy brain photos in an effort to get him to repudiate the EOP site and accept the cowlick site. They repeatedly pointed out that any bullet entering at the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle (1) would have likely damaged the cerebellum, (2) would have certainly at least caused some pre-mortem bleeding in the cerebellum, and (3) absolutely could not have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, and that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum, show no bleeding at or near the area of the EOP, and show no damage to the rear section of the right occipital lobe. Nevertheless, Finck doggedly refused to budge, insisting to the very end that the EOP site was correct.
And here's the kicker: The FPP never told Finck that just hours earlier, Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, revealed to the FPP that one of the late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas was "a large fragment of the occipital bone" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 5). (BTW, Ebersole also told the FPP that there was a large visible wound in "the back of the head," and that he recalled seeing a "gaping occipital wound" [Ibid., pp. 3, 62]).
Ebersole's disclosure that a large fragment of occipital bone arrived from Dallas poses a huge problem for the autopsy brain photos. Since most of the bottom half of the occipital bone lies directly over the cerebellum, and since the top half of the occipital bone lies directly over the right and left occipital lobes, a bullet that blew out a large fragment of occipital bone would have done at least some visible damage to the cerebellum and would have done considerable damage to the rear part of the right and/or left occipital lobe. Yet, no such damage appears in the brain photos. It is no wonder that the FPP sealed Ebersole's testimony--it was not released until the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
Finck could have made very good use of Ebersole's disclosure to defend the EOP site, but of course that would have meant saying that the autopsy skull-rays, head photos, and brain photos were unreliable, if not fraudulent, since they show no sizable defect in the occiput, show no damage to the cerebellum anywhere close to the EOP, and show no damage at all to the rear part of the right occipital lobe. As it was, when the discussion over the EOP site grew heated, Finck actually questioned how the autopsy photos of the head had been authenticated ("Testimony of Pierre A. Finck," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 89). It is no wonder that the FPP sealed Finck's testimony--it, like Ebersole's testimony, was not released until the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
I should add that Dr. Boswell stated in his HSCA interview that JFK's brain was "so torn up it would not have shown a tract" ("Interview with J. Thornton Boswell," HSCA, 8/16/77, p. 2). Yet the brain in the autopsy brain photos looks nothing like this. The brain in the brain photos has only one laceration, a cut that runs vertically from the end of the occipital lobes to the end of the frontal lobe, with the cerebellum being virtually undamaged, with the rear part of the right occipital lobe being undamaged, with the left occipital lobe being undamaged, and with the left frontal and parietal lobes appearing undamaged.
Also, when the ARRB's executive director and general counsel, Jeremy Gunn, interviewed Dr. Finck and asked him if the cerebellum was damaged, at first Finck said there was "extensive damage," but in the very next breath he said "I can't answer that," and when Gunn asked him again, he again said "I can't answer that" ("Deposition of Pierre A. Finck," ARRB, 5/24/96, p. 104).
Of course, if the cerebellum suffered even moderate damage, the autopsy brain photos must be fake, since they show the cerebellum to be undamaged (with the sole exception of some very minor damage on the bottom--and FPP member Dr. George Loquvam said the brain photos do not even show any bleeding in the cerebellum except for some post-mortem bleeding). Yet, a number of medical witnesses who saw JFK's head wounds in Dallas, including Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, said there was extensive damage to the cerebellum.
The HSCA FPP majority hammered Finck over the autopsy brain photos in an effort to get him to repudiate the EOP site and accept the cowlick site. They repeatedly pointed out that any bullet entering at the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle (1) would have likely damaged the cerebellum, (2) would have certainly at least caused some pre-mortem bleeding in the cerebellum, and (3) absolutely could not have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, and that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum, show no bleeding at or near the area of the EOP, and show no damage to the rear section of the right occipital lobe. Nevertheless, Finck doggedly refused to budge, insisting to the very end that the EOP site was correct.
And here's the kicker: The FPP never told Finck that just hours earlier, Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, revealed to the FPP that one of the late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas was "a large fragment of the occipital bone" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 5). (BTW, Ebersole also told the FPP that there was a large visible wound in "the back of the head," and that he recalled seeing a "gaping occipital wound" [Ibid., pp. 3, 62]).
Ebersole's disclosure that a large fragment of occipital bone arrived from Dallas poses a huge problem for the autopsy brain photos. Since most of the bottom half of the occipital bone lies directly over the cerebellum, and since the top half of the occipital bone lies directly over the right and left occipital lobes, a bullet that blew out a large fragment of occipital bone would have done at least some visible damage to the cerebellum and would have done considerable damage to the rear part of the right and/or left occipital lobe. Yet, no such damage appears in the brain photos. It is no wonder that the FPP sealed Ebersole's testimony--it was not released until the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
Finck could have made very good use of Ebersole's disclosure to defend the EOP site, but of course that would have meant saying that the autopsy skull-rays, head photos, and brain photos were unreliable, if not fraudulent, since they show no sizable defect in the occiput, show no damage to the cerebellum anywhere close to the EOP, and show no damage at all to the rear part of the right occipital lobe. As it was, when the discussion over the EOP site grew heated, Finck actually questioned how the autopsy photos of the head had been authenticated ("Testimony of Pierre A. Finck," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 89). It is no wonder that the FPP sealed Finck's testimony--it, like Ebersole's testimony, was not released until the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
29
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 05:56:23 PM »I haven’t seen the footage that shows one glove missing fromMichael Jackson
12:36 PM - Officer Harkness made a documented police radio transmission. He radio'd that he was bringing a witness, (Amos Euins), to the TSBD.
12:37 PM - Officer Harkness placed Amos Euins inside Inspector Sawyer's car in front of the TSBD.
12:38 PM - Officer Harkness secured the back of the TSBD. This is what we see on the Darnell still frame above.
12:38 PM - The Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop heads Toward/Down the Elm St Extension..
12:40 PM - 12:45 PM. - I have recently found film shot during this time period showing a military dressed man. He is on foot, exiting the dirt portion of the Elm St Extension, and entering into the train yard. This Military Man is heading in the direction of the end of the string of passenger train cars. The end of the string of passenger train cars is also where we 1st see the Bogus Motorcycle Cop on the Darnell Film. I believe the 2+ minute gap between our seeing the Bogus Motorcycle Cop heading Down the Elm St Ext and the Military Man then coming Up/Exiting the Elm St Ext and entering the train yard connects these 2 individuals. The Elm St Extension and the Train Yard have been overlooked for 62+ yrs. They are JFK Assassination Research virgin ground along with being geographically connected.
.......................................... STAY TUNED ...............................................................
30
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
« Last post by Charles Collins on Yesterday at 05:51:51 PM »This whole thread has been suspect from the get go. The true purpose has been culminating in your recent posts of the pictures of shells and your explanation for your actions and posts. No one needed one more picture with your ridiculous lines on them. It could not be more obvious how deceitful this has become.
The difference between you making a claim and expressing an opinion is you having been told how stupid it was to think the shells would have the exact same dent in the exact same place on so many shells and the unfired cartridge as a result of the rear bridge or any location for that matter. The rear bridge could never have caused the dent in CE 543, and you have not shown where it was even remotely a possibility. A picture of the dent in CE 543 needs to show the dimple in the middle of the dent or would that cast this whole bizarre nonsense in a bad light. Where is the top-down picture of the shell you were claiming was CE 543. That is OK, it doesn’t matter; it is only a few pages back in the thread. By your own statements regarding the dent, it is either flared or not a picture of CE 543.
Here’s another photo of the top view as requested. I made it into an animated GIF to show conclusively that there simply is no flare on the mouth of CE 543. The blinking yellow circle is intended to show that the rim of the mouth is still round with the exception of the dented in section.
The side view posted previously with the parallel yellow lines shows that the neck of CE 543 still has parallel sides. This is meant to show that there simply is no flare on the neck of CE 543.