Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 08:56:18 PM »
What is being suggested - that this is just the Thorburn reflex from a bullet hitting the cervical spine?
62
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 08:24:56 PM »
Quote from: Steve Barber on Yesterday at 03:15:15 PM
Here are three crucial Zapruder film frames that dispel the theory that President Kennedy "grabs","grabbed" or "clutched his throat".

Note that his right hand immediately jerks upward, and either in front of his mouth or over it.  His upper body is also thrust forward, twice as his right hand appears to cover his mouth.
 
Note that, except for the forefinger on his left hand, his fingers are curled, and is either against the under side of his right hand, or just below it.  Neither hand goes toward his throat, or anywhere near it. 

Also note in frame 248, JFK's right hand is at cheek level.  He has turned his head slightly to his left, while his hand is still at the same level it was in over/in front of his mouth.

vlcsnap 2026 06 25 13h24m27s591" border="0

vlcsnap 2026 06 25 13h29m34s162" border="0

vlcsnap 2026 06 25 13h30m28s293" border="0

    Another misnomer that is routinely accepted as being true, is the distance between JFK and Jackie. People routinely claim that Jackie was extremely close to JFK and that a (R) front shot would have struck here too. As can be seen above, there was plenty of space between JFK and Jackie. Same goes for the Z Frames leading up to 313. I think people viewing the Z Film get subconsciously caught up in 313 being almost directly in front of Zapruder and then believe the 313 fired shot was fired from that same angle. Not true.
63
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The bones of the skull
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 08:16:54 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 24, 2026, 05:30:44 PM
The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.

Once again you show you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. Umm, no, no, no, the FPP most certainly did not identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Where in the world do you get that?! Obviously, you haven't even looked at the FPP's wound diagrams of the skull damage or read the FPP's report. They did not put any of the skull fragments in the frontal bone. Go look at their own drawings and figures in 7 HSCA, for crying out loud.

The FPP put the large triangular fragment in the parietal bone, not in the frontal bone, even though their skull reconstruction expert, Dr. Lawrence Angel, told them this was wrong. Dr. Angel correctly put the fragment in the frontal bone, and his diagrams show that it extended nearly to the hairline, but the FPP simply ignored him, even though FPP radiology consultants also noted a substantial amount of missing frontal bone.

I just discussed this fact in a reply in my thread "Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence," to which you responded with the juvenile line "Nobody cares"--yeah, you obviously don't care about facts. Here's the link to my reply:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5041.msg181243.html#msg181243

Interested readers can find the HSCA's diagrams and figures, along with Dr. Angel's diagrams and report, in John Hunt's famous article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which, by the way, I have cited to Corbett at least three times. Here's the link to the article:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

The only "missing bone" that the FPP identified in the frontal bone was part of the tiny hole that straddles the coronal suture, at the rear of the frontal bone and the front of the parietal bone; the hole is partly in the frontal bone and partly in the parietal bone.



64
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Understanding the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Cover-Up
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:41:14 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 25, 2026, 03:37:42 PM
In New Orleans. Not in Dallas. Do you have any reason to believe anybody in New Orleans knew or cared about Oswald's whereabouts once he left that city?
Don't you think that is an important thing to establish if you  are going to theorize that he conspired with one of those groups to kill JFK.
People knew he was coming to Dallas. BFD. You need much more specific information if you are going to set up an assassination.
For it to make any sense for any of the aforementioned groups to include Oswald in their plans, they would need to know the motorcade route and that Oswald would have access to a building along that route. The route was not announced until 11/18/1963. There is zero evidence the Mafia or any Cuban group was in contact with Oswald before or after that date. You can speculate wildly if you want but if you are going to make a compelling argument, you need some actual evidence.
None whatsoever.
I've already asked this question. Is there a certification process for being a Grade A JFKA researcher? What are the requirements? I already got duped once by someone who had a reputation as a top-notch investigative reporter, Jack Anderson. He briefly had me convinced the assassination was a collaboration between the CIA and the Mafia who had a shared interest in getting rid of Castro. It took me a few years to figure out his story was BS and that he was a charlatan.
What reason would they have had to include Oswald in their plans prior to 11/18/1963? I find it a bit far-fetched to believe they planned to use Oswald as either the shooter or the patsy and then they the route is announced and they said, "Oh, look. The guy we hired to shoot JFK works right along the motorcade route.". It makes little sense that they would have hired Oswald for the biggest contract killing in history even after the motorcade route was announced and makes zero sense they would have had any interest in using Oswald before they knew where the motorcade was going.
Yes it can. It makes no sense.
You seem to be trying really hard to convince yourself this is a plausible scenario.

Oh my goodness, this is hilarious. Here we have John Corbett, who is truly and literally a know-nothing troll, attacking Lance Payette for showing some open-mindedness on two widely believed and credible conspiracy scenarios (Mafia and Cuban G2). As usual, the adamance and arrogance in Corbett's arguments are matched only by his raw ignorance of JFK assassination research.

Regarding Gus Russo and his book Live By the Sword, I reviewed the book back in 2012. Here's a little bit of what I said about the book in my review:

I would like to stress that, in spite of the problems discussed above, I believe Russo's Live by the Sword is an important, worthwhile book. It contains a great deal of new information on key aspects of the JFK assassination. Russo does a superb job on the possible involvement of Cuban intelligence in Kennedy's death, on the reports that Oswald had contacts with Cuban intelligence in Mexico City, on the possibility that some intelligence elements had foreknowledge that Kennedy was going to be killed, on the flaws in the Warren Commission's investigation, on the conflicts among the Warren Commission's staff and members, on Lyndon Johnson's political standing with John Kennedy at the time of the shooting, on the suspicious activities at Red Bird Airport, and on several other subjects. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1juiglUsXuJrapG3c9CSsam7Qp8F0UD7B/view)
 


65
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:33:57 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-adviser-turned-critic-john-bolton-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-classified-documents/ar-AA26CDDE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=6a3ec23241d4425baef59aa782fc2408&ei=37

Former Trump adviser turned Never-Trumper has pled guilty to mishandling of classified documents and awaits sentencing. He has already been fined $2.25 million and could get anywhere from probation to five years in prison. His guilty plea should put to rest claims that these charges were lawfare and that Trump had weaponized the Justice Dept. against him.

The question now is, will the legacy media even report this. Their tendency is to cover up negative stories about Trump's enemies. I'm going to record ABC, NBC, and CBS nightly news programs tonight to see how they treat this story if at all.
66
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: A Few of the Problems with the Case Against Oswald
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:07:55 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 03:17:01 PM
Another important item of evidence of Oswald's innocence is the NAA testing that was done on the paraffin cast from his right cheek. The paraffin mold was made from his right cheek about eight hours after the assassination. The  paraffin cast was eventually tested at the Oak Ridge Laboratory using the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test. The NAA test found no chemical indication, i.e., no nitrates, in the paraffin cast that Oswald had fired a rifle during the shooting. The NAA test results were suppressed for years until they were finally released as a result of Harold Weisberg's FOIA lawsuits.


You do like to polish off old turds and present them as if they are new.

The WC addressed the issue of the negative paraffin test. The results were not surpressed. An FBI agent fired Oswald's Carcano and was administered the same paraffin test. He too tested negative on his cheek. The reason is that a bolt action rifle like the Carcano fires a round from a sealed chamber. The only dispersion of gunpowerd residue is out of the barrel of the rifle which would be well away from Oswald's face end ejected out away from him. There would be no discharge of residue near Oswald's face.

Paraffin tests are an unreliable way of determining whether a person has or has not fired a gun. They yield both false positives and false negatives. Their main use in crime solving is to try the leverage a confession from a suspect.

If you stick around for another 20 years, maybe you can recycle this old turd one more time.
67
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 07:03:17 PM »
Quote from: Richard Smith on Yesterday at 06:22:13 PM
I did.  If you entertain the possibility that Oswald did not kill Tippit and that the investigators were attempting to frame him for this crime as you do, then that is impossible to square with the investigators suppressing an Oswald wallet found at the Tippit murder scene as you also suggest happened.  The discovery of such a wallet at the murder scene is highly incriminating to its owner.  Your fantasy involves a wallet being suppressed because there would then be two Oswald wallets in evidence.  If the investigators have the ability to suppress one such wallet, then it's not going to be the one left at the crime scene because that links Oswald directly to the crime - either because he committed it or it was planted for that very purpose.  Either way no one has any incentive to suppress that wallet. If they need to put something in it from Oswald's arrest wallet or switch the wallets, they just do so because they control the evidence but there would no logical reason abandon the critical fact that it was left at the crime scene.  Your claims are not only baseless but contradictory in purpose with the investigators working against their own interest either in solving the crime or framing Oswald for that crime.

If you entertain the possibility that Oswald did not kill Tippit and that the investigators were attempting to frame him for this crime as you do

No I don't. I'm just trying to resolve a massive discrepancy in the evidence, which is something the WC should have done but instead just ignored it.

You're just making stuff up in order to have something to attack and are failing miserably.

then that is impossible to square with the investigators suppressing an Oswald wallet found at the Tippit murder scene as you also suggest happened.

The only one who is constantly claiming that investigators suppressed a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene is you. You've been told this a number of times.

Your fantasy involves a wallet being suppressed because there would then be two Oswald wallets in evidence.

It's your fantasy, not mine and there are not two wallets in evidence. There couldn't be if one was suppressed. You are all over the place.

Your idiotic made up arguments go nowhere and only serve to obscure the fact that Bentley said he gave the wallet he took from Oswald to Lt Baker. We know from Hill this happened around 4:00 PM.

And T.C. Walker, who was present at the Tippit scene with Westbrook said he had a card with a picture of Oswald and the name Hidell on it. That card was found in a wallet that some unknown person gave to Guy Rose just after Oswald was brought into the City Hall and submitted to the evidence room at 3:25 PM

You have to be completely out of touch with reality to not understand that there were indeed two wallets of which only one was entered into evidence.

Try dealing with that for a moment instead of making up stuff and misrepresenting what I have said.


68
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 06:51:34 PM »
Quote from: John Mytton on Yesterday at 02:36:37 AM
Wow, at least, Varnell understood the evidence of no bullets or bullet fragments inside of JFK's torso and made up the loony "ice bullet" theory.

The person who dreamed that one up must have seen the movie Three Days of the Condor.
Quote

Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?
Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.
Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
Mr. SPECTER - What conclusion, if any, did you reach as to whether point "D" on 385 was the point of entrance or exit?
Commander HUMES - We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C" which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound. 

BTW, how many times do you people need to be told that when you are trying to set up a lone patsy who was high and behind, that a sniper in the front would NEVER have been considered, it's totally absurd!

JohnM

That's also a good reason for dismissing the bogus claim that CE399 was planted (by Jack Ruby according to Oliver Stone's BS movie). Why would these imaginary plotters go to the trouble of planting a bullet that had been fired by Oswald's rifle? It makes zero sense. If there was one or more gunmen not named Lee Harvey Oswald, one of two things is true.

1. That person used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK.

2. That person(s) used one or more rifles other than Oswald's Carcano.

If #1 is true, why bother planting another bullet from the Carcano? Why not just let the bullets that actually killed JFK do the talking.

If #2 is true, why would someone plant a bullet from the Carcano if another rifle was used and the plan was to set up a lone patsy to take the fall. If you plant a bullet from the Carcano and use another rifle(s) to do the  killing, that introduces the likelihood that bullets from more than one rifle are going to be found which would pretty much destroy the attempt to have a patsy take the fall.

However, it should be noted that there has never been a rule that says JFKA conspiracy theories have to make sense.
69
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:48:57 PM »
Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 03:42:59 PM
What's revealing is that Michael Griffith said he believes in the HSCA acoustic evidence. That is four shots: three from the TSBD (or behind JFK) and one shot from the fence/GK (or to his right side.) That alone disproves a entrance shot to the throat. That's if, as he does, believe the acoustic analysis.

Apparently you haven't read my article on the acoustical evidence nor my posts in this forum on the subject. I've pointed out many times that the acoustical evidence does not automatically require one to believe that only four shots were fired and that three of them came from the alleged Oswald window, since the HSCA's Dealey Plaza test firing only fired shots from the sixth-floor window and from one spot behind the fence on the grassy knoll, and since, as the HSCA acoustical experts noted, a shot fired from several feet back from a window would not be recorded by the dictabelt (at least not recorded enough to detect). And, needless to say, shot fired by a gunman using a silencer would not have been recorded by the dictabelt.

Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 03:42:59 PM
He also believes there was a shooter on top of the linen truck and that Babushka Lady was a CIA agent, June Cobb, and that she "possibly" shot JFK with a camera gun. That's two more shots. And he believes that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated assassination of JFK. That's another shooter, at least.

I'm not sure where you're getting half of this stuff. I've never said anything about a shooter on top of the linen truck, and I've never said that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated shooting of JFK (although I do believe there was triangulation, but not involving Oswald).

Yes, I do believe that June Cobb was a CIA agent, based on Mary Haverstick's ground-breaking research in her recent book A Woman I Know. I'm guessing you haven't read the book. And, yes, I do believe it's possible that the Babushka Lady, whether or not she was June Cobb, may have used a gun camera to fire a shot at JFK--again, based on Haverstick's research. Gun cameras were definitely a thing by 1963, and the Babushka Lady's actions seem odd and suspicious. See Haverstick's research.

Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 03:42:59 PM
He has shooters all over Dealey Plaza shooting from various angles and locations. But he also believe the HSCA acoustic analysis of two shooters and two locations.

I don't have shooters "all over Dealey Plaza," and the acoustical evidence does not mean that only four shots were fired, as explained above.

Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 03:42:59 PM
He believes in things that contradict other things that he believes. It's a mishmash of claims that are at odds with other claims. Day after day, week after week, month after month. For decades.

The supposed "contradictions" are in your mind and are based on your lack of knowledge of my research and of other scholarly research.

Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound? 

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 03:42:59 PM
It's the classic example of a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind.

Well, of course. Anyone who disagrees with your minority view of the JFK case simply must have "a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind." It just can't be that your view on the case is a decidedly minority view because your version of the assassination is implausible and untenable. No, that just can't be. 

At least I'm in good company, since 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world believes JFK was killed by a conspiracy, and since the last official federal investigation into the assassination concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that a shot came from the grassy knoll, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald weeks before the assassination, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, and that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there.

Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?

70
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Huge Gates Theory
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 06:47:39 PM »
Quote from: John Mytton on Yesterday at 02:49:30 PM
The first photo I posted was a crop from a higher definition of the one you linked to! So....
Secondly, why would an electrical box be mounted at a right angle instead of flush against the wall? and on the second floor??
Thirdly, why would the lower section be cut out to fit over the facia?
Fourthly, why is the "front on" photo showing an electrical box with no depth?
And finally, in the following higher res copy of the image, as opposed to the photo in your link, the cable you claim leads to the electrical box, passes by right in front and is not seen in any other hi-res photo.











BTW, establishing a box from a virtually shadowless object in a two dimensional photo is not a good technique, just saying.

JohnM

   JOHN - Thanks for posting these photos. Whatever the original purpose of this "object" might have been, it did obstruct seeing the area atop the Huge Gates when turning from Houston St onto Elm St. This would include the "scanning" vision of the SS and DPD law enforcement. Remember: (1) DPD Officer Smith ran down the Elm St Ext due to being told that they were shooting the President through the "bushes", (2) Mal Couch WC Testimony of hearing witnesses talking about shot(s) being fired through the "Shrubs", (3) Bill Newman reporting that shot(s) were being fired from the "Garden", and (4) Alyea film footage of DPD detectives looking out/down from the TSBD 6th floor window directly above the Huge Gates. This window being all the way down the side of the TSBD AWAY from the sniper's nest. A possible shooter atop the Huge Gates, laying down, and hugging the TSBD, would Not be seen due to this "object". The firing of shot(s) from atop the "wide open" Huge Gates would cause Tree Leafs to fall. This could have given the eyewitnesses the false impression of shot(s) being fired from the "bushes" and/or "shrubs".     
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10