51
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.
Recent Posts
52
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.
53
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?
54
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"?
55
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.
56
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 ...............................................................
57
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.
58
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When are the CTs here going to tell us who, specifically, killed JFK?
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 05:45:44 PM »Still using the all-the-evidence-has-been-suppressed excuse for why you guys can't make the case for your imagined conspiracies. You guys START was a conspiracy and then go looking for the evidence to support your premise. When you can't find any, you convince yourself all the good stuff has been hidden. Your entire premise is based on what-ifs. I count 3 in your latest post.
I remember back in the early 1990s when I was still a neophyte when it came to the internet and the JFK conspiracy debate. Shortly after Oliver Stone's movie came out, the ARRB was formed. The CTs were telling the LNs that the proof of conspiracy was just around the corner. When the bulk of the files were released, it turned out to be a big nothing burger. Ever since, the CTs have been whining that they are still holding on to the good stuff. As more and more of the files were gradually released and there was still no smoking gun, the CTs insisted that the few remaining sealed documents would have the proof they needed. When Trump finally released everything, it was still a big nothing burger. The CTs still insist evidence is being held from them. It's a matter of faith with them that there was a conspiracy and they would be able to prove that if only the government wasn't hiding the evidence. They never consider the possibility that their long-held beliefs could be wrong.
You guys START was a conspiracy and then go looking for the evidence to support your premise.
I don't know who "you guys" are but as far as I am concerned you couldn't be more wrong.
I take in consideration the selection of witnesses to testify before the WC. Arlen Specter spoke to FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill about their observations during Kennedy's autopsy and then decided not to call them to testify. Tomlinson, who found a bullet at Parkland Hospital, that was allegedly CE 399, never testified. They took his statement and he was asked over and over again about the stretcher that the bullet was on, but he wasn't asked once to identify the bullet that he gave to Wright. On April 10, 1964 Albert E Jenner wrote a memo to J. Lee Rankin in which he states that some parts of John Ely's memorandum about Oswald required "material alteration". And then there was the testimony of FBI questioned documents expert Cadigan's which was altered by deleting and let's not forget the way Rankin simply ignored the letter from Barefoot Sanders, in which he states that Miss Garner had said that she saw Truly and a policeman come up (the stairs) after Victoria Adams went on. What was also ignored/supressed was that Buell Wesley Frazier had stated on Friday evening, while being polygraphed, that the bag shown to him (i.e. the bag allegedly found at the sniper's nest) wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry earlier that day.
The list goes on and on. It's all evidence that information was indeed supressed and/or manipulated.
But I'm sure that a fanatical LN zealot like you couldn't care less about any of this.
59
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:41:39 PM »I'm not defending what this guy did, but his age should factor into whether you decide to basically end his life. Obviously, your being seated onna jury murder case is out of the question.
Not really. I have already been a juror in a murder case and we convicted the guy. He too claimed self defense and the jury unanimously rejected his claim.
I don't give a shit how young Karmelo Anthony was. His victim was roughly the same age. His victim got no mercy. Why should Anthony. I hope the remainder of his life is as miserable as it can be.
60
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:35:37 PM »You really should find a niche on a religion forum, because so many of your statements are right out of the atheist playbook. Either atheism or religion can be "faith based" in the sense of an entirely mindless adoption of a position for reasons having little or nothing to do with the ontological truth of that position. It is the atheist playbook that religion is entirely faith-based - i.e., nothing but delusional or "magical" thinking. In fact, serious believers - such as myself - have evaluated a vast body of scientific, anecdotal and testimonial evidence, as well as philosophical and theological arguments, in arriving at convictions that can be described as religious. The "leap of faith" in the direction of religion is not markedly different from the "leap of faith" toward atheism because the ontological truth of either position cannot be known in this lifetime. The comparison between a believer and unbeliever is simply a matter of how much diligence the individual has exercised in reaching his or her convictions and the depth of those convictions. Once one has reached a set of religious convictions and is inside the religious framework, then the term "faith" is indeed used in a slightly different and uniquely religious sense that is something along the lines of "internal knowledge."
At this point, the three-shot scenario is not unlike a religious conviction. The ontological truth will never be known. What you call "an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" others who are equally informed do not find so overwhelming. I do not find it overwhelming. When no one can tell us when the first shot was even fired, and there is no physical evidence apart from a shell with an oddly shaped primer indentation and a dented lip, to refer to "overwhelming" evidence sounds very much like the claim of a religious zealot. You find the evidence sufficient to reach some level of conviction, while others find it sufficient to reach a different conviction or end up holding an "agnostic" position on the issue. That's just the reality - it's a matter of how one interprets the evidence.
Your persistence in calling Jack a troll is exactly what a religious zealot or militant atheist does. "Only I know God, and if you disagree with me and [my interpretation of] the Bible you're going to hell!" "If you persist in believing there is a deity, you're just a delusional magic thinker!" The number of shots fired by Oswald is an open issue as to which intelligent and diligent people can hold different views. There is no certainty and at this point can never be. Before reading Phantom Shot, I had never considered the possibility of only two shots. Having read it and looked into the issue more deeply myself, it is a theory that has a lot of merit. What further underscores that your position is akin to a religious one is that, ironically, the two-shot scenario doesn't challenge the LN narrative at all! It is only a threat to your "dogma." The Great Schism of 1054 AD that forever split the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church was largely over the filioque - i.e., whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from only the Father or both the Father and the Son. It sounds completely goofy to me, but this "three shot or two shot" debate is strikingly similar: did three shots (orthodoxy!) or only two (heresy!) proceed from Oswald's rifle in the religion we call the LN narrative?
You make the assumption I am an atheist. If atheism could answer all my questions, I would probably be an atheist. It can't so I'm not. I am agnostic. Mankind has been pondering this question for as long as humans have had the ability to ponder. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a provable answer. The late Dr. Carl Sagain, who was also an agnostic, said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". That pretty much sums up my position on religion.
As it applies to the JFKA, I KNOW that Oswald was the assassin. I BELIEVE he was acting on his own behalf but because I can't prove a negative, I can't logically say he had no accomplices. Only that I believe that to be highly unlikely. Ditto for the two shot scenario. There is ample, highly compelling evidence of three shots, both forensic and earwitness accounts. The WC recognized the theoretical possibility that Oswald could have started with an empty shell in the chamber and only fired two shots, but I find that to be highly unlikely.