51
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: I have had a JFKA epiphany!
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 08:56:16 AM »Graves, give it a damn rest.
this WAS a pretty good discussion until, well……… the first part is good.
Recent Posts
Graves, give it a damn rest.
Perhaps I should copy your exemplary academic posting style...Meanwhile the posting style of the Prayer Man trolls goes uncriticized, which involves some of the worst organized corruption and dishonesty in internet history...Kamp then gets the endorsement of podcast idiots who are just looking to self-promote themselves with popular theories and researchers - evidence be damned (Ciphered Past, Robbie Robertson, Rob Clark, Len Osanic)...
Prayer Man is holding her purse up in front of her face and is looking down in to it...Her grand daughter Wanda sent me a photo of herself holding the purse as a child...
The internet allows dominating personalities to manipulate moderator favoritism and place friendships and clique over good evidence...They keep Mark Knight around to make sure they get away with it...Once disproven they keep their bad bans and don't apologize...It is much easier to just ban the people who out-argue you instead of admitting your were wrong...
Let me see if I got this straight. You have JFK hit in the back by the first shot and hit in the head by the third shot. You have JBC hit by the second shot, around Z270 if I recall. So if JBC was hit by the second shot and Tague was hit by the second shot, wouldn't they both have to have been hit by the same shot?Yes. But I will give you a little hint: JBC’s right arm is not on or near his lap at z271.
What you are seeing there is the top ejecta that possessed the Occipital plug and shot out over the top of the seat back followed by the heavier brain matter that slopped down in to the back seat and was seen oozing out by the medical witnesses...
ALL IN THE DIRECTION OF A REAR-EXITING OCCIPITAL WOUND AS SEEN AT PARKLAND...
This wound was clearly described by Clint Hill as he looked down in to it in the back of JFK's head...Hill was then forced to lie and his story progressed towards what Carrico also changed his story to...
No. I am agreeing that a bullet did not strike JBC’s radius while his right forearm was on or near his lap and then deflect up over the front seat.
People who read the sources you are quoting are going to see how dishonestly you are portraying the evidence and how brazenly you are misrepresenting what Dr. Young said. You continue to just make up stuff, offer lame spins, dishonestly ignore key evidence, and then issue baseless, misleading conclusions about the evidence. Obviously, you still have not bothered to read the links provided in the OP, or the transcript of the 2001 interview, which is linked in two of the links.
Contrary to your falsehood, Dr. Young saw the bullet and even described what it looked like. He talked about this in the 2013 article, in his 2001 interview, and in his book What Price a Rose?. Let's read some of what you dishonestly left out:
Question: So, the bullet, again, was a copper jacketed bullet like a military bullet?
Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. . . . I don’t know, maybe it was copper, I couldn’t tell. But it was that color or brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . and so I called Tom Mills and I said, “Tom do you recall this situation?’ He said, "Yes I do" and he said, "You’re exactly right." He said, "We did bring that slug out from the back. . . ." (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 54, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf; see also https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)
These statements are only two paragraphs below the paragraphs that you quote. Why did you omit them and then falsely claim that Dr. Young never saw the bullet?
Let's read more of what Dr. Young said that you omitted:
They went down, both Chiefs Mills and Martinell went down to the White House and then this I'm going to continue. [Quoting from What Price a Rose?] "The envelope contained three pieces of skull bone, one about three inches in diameter, another two inches in diameter and the third about one to one and a half inches in diameter. It also contained a brass slug about half a centimeter in diameter and distorted. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible. The convertible was splattered with considerable brain tissue. This also, I noted, on the back of the jacket of Agent Greer, the President's driver. (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 51, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)
Now, gee, why did you leave out these key statements as well? In the interview transcript, they come just two pages before the statements you quote. So you left out key statements that come two pages before and a few paragraphs after the statements you quote. Obviously, you were trying to mislead readers.
You want people to believe your lie that Young never saw the bullet, so you omitted the statements where he made it clear that he saw the bullet.
I notice you dropped all your nonsense about the limo having to be driven to Bethesda. I also notice you failed to acknowledge your gaffe of quoting the highly condensed version of the 2013 edited by Sobocinski, obviously not realizing that it contained excerpts from only three of the 12 pages of the 2013 article.
I also notice that you simply ignored the fact that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to confirm his recollection.
If you had read Milicent Cranor's article on Dr. Young's account, you would know that she debunks your theory that Dr. Young was referring to "the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found." You're talking about the two bullet fragments that the Secret Service found in the front of the limo (near the front driver's seat), whereas Mills and Martinell found a deformed whole bullet in the rear of the limo.
Even your description is dishonest. The Secret Service did not find a "fragmented bullet," but only two fragments, part of a nose and part of a tail, that constituted less than half of a bullet. And, again, those two fragments were found at the opposite end of the limo from where Mills and Martinell found the misshapen bullet.
Moreover, the two fragments found in the front of the limo were never taken to the autopsy. They were handed over to the FBI and never got anywhere near Bethesda Naval Hospital. So, clearly, those two fragments had nothing to do with the deformed whole bullet that Mills and Martinell found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw with his own eyes.
Oh, gee, Humes never admitted that he received a deformed whole bullet along with the skull fragments! Gosh and golly! What a surprise! LOL! Humes also never admitted that he determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that he knew about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 PM at the autopsy, yet we now know that he did (partly thanks to Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist). Humes never admitted that he did two separate brain exams and excluded Finck from the first one, yet we know that he did. Humes never admitted that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, yet Dr. Boswell admitted this to the HSCA and the ARRB. Humes never admitted that he sawed open the top part of the skull, yet two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, revealed that he did. Humes never explained why he said nothing about the brazenly obvious high fragment trail in the autopsy report. And on and on we could go.
Here were have a former Navy O-6, a former Navy chief, and a Navy historian confirming the finding of a misshapen bullet in the limo, along with some skull fragments, and you falsely pretend that Dr. Young's account is just a fanciful story floating around the internet.
This is yet another example of the refusal of WC apologists to acknowledge evidence that refutes their theory, no matter how credible and compelling the evidence is. Even though Young's account was vetted by a Navy historian and was deemed worthy of publication in an official Navy history, and even though Chief Mills confirmed the finding of the bullet and confirmed Young's later phone call to verify his recollection, you guys reject Young's account and offer lame excuses, demonstrably false claims, and misleading omissions to justify your rejection.