Scott Tame Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 . have you found a single photo or xray that looks like what McClellend or Sibert, or O'Neill, or anyone else other than Boswell drew? Nice to see you finally concede that the so called post 8:00 witnesses (Siebert & O'Neill) describe the same wound as Parkland. You are a moron... post an official autopsy photo/xray of the hole in the back of his head... as described by most everyone prior to Boswell.... That you can't figure out the context of the FBI's report and what Hoover was doing to his men and the USA is painfully obvious... Talking to you Scott is like discussing it with a 5 year old. Actually, I know 5 year olds who you can't hold a candle to... please go back to sleep or to whatever it is you do when not trolling on this forum... ============ Ray, he's all yours... but try to remember You can't fix stupid. Oh! Now you want me to "post an official autopsy photo/xray of the hole in the back of his head" Do you have some type of cognitive disorder? I told you over 50 posts ago that the photos and x-rays don't match the descriptions of the Bethesda witnesses. You seem to be having trouble keeping up. Poor thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Name calling in addition to the shouting and hand waving. More classic Cinque! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Just a dumb question, does everyone involved in this discussion, outside of Pat Speer maybe, pretty much agree with the Parkland observation of there being a large hole in the back of JFK's head? I mean, let's go easy on each other, fellows. I have a sneaking suspicion we are all on the same team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Is it a sumo wrestling team, Robert? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 LOL Ken, hard to say. Tell me, I know you are a fellow Canadian; are you in Saskatchewan or Ontario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Haven't had enough, David. I was waiting for Scott apologise for mis-stating what MacDonald had said about Jackie at Bethesda. Are you saying MacDonalds parents are liars? Oh my! No. Just you . You said that McDonald said that he saw Jackie at Bethesda. I have shown you that he didn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) I said that MacDonald said? I think you better go back and reread that. So by saying his parents saw her he's claiming she wasn't there? Trying to distract peole from the fact that Dave finally had to concede that "post 8;00" witnesses saw the same wound as Parkland? Edited March 11, 2014 by Scott Tame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Your quote "Here's another one, Ray. This guy claims that the body arrived by helicopter, was on a gurney cover by a sheet, and was placed in a grey ambulance. And to top it off he claims Jackie was on the helo too." http://ajmacdonaldjr...tal-what-i-saw/ His actual comment; "My mom and dad remember seeing Jackie Kennedy there too — still wearing her blood stained dress — but I don’t remember seeing her. Edited March 11, 2014 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Trying to distract peole from the fact that Dave finally had to concede that "post 8;00" witnesses saw the same wound as Parkland? No- just to show that you can't comprehend what MacDonald wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I apologize, Ray. I see how that might confuse you. Let me fix that: he says his parents saw Jackie, but is unclear whether he believes she was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I apologize, Ray. I see how that might confuse you. Let me fix that: he says his parents saw Jackie, but is unclear whether he believes she was there. It didn't confuse me, Scott. It obviously confused you as you said he said he saw Jackie when he didn't say that at all. What part of " "My mom and dad remember seeing Jackie Kennedy there too — still wearing her blood stained dress — but I don’t remember seeing her." do you not understand? But anyway apology accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 LOL Ken, hard to say. Tell me, I know you are a fellow Canadian; are you in Saskatchewan or Ontario? Robert, I 'm in Ontario, though I have traveled east and west, covering 4 provinces and 34 US states. I felt like I was living the American life in 1968. My family was driving to Los Angeles from northern Ontario, when RFK announced his run for the presidency. We got tickets to the Carrol Burnett show on CBS television, and 2 of us asked Ms. Burnett questions when she talked to the audience during her show. We were told when the episode would air. We were driving home through Texas the evening when the show was supposed to be on. We stopped at a ma and pa motel in rural Texas and asked the owners if we could watch the start of the Carrol Burnett show on the t.v. in their open lobby. They welcomed us in and we crowded around the set. CBS then preempted the show to present LBJ announcing that he would not run for president. We were sad to miss the show, but glad that LBJ was not going to seek another term. Sorry for going so far off topic my fellow members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Just a dumb question, does everyone involved in this discussion, outside of Pat Speer maybe, pretty much agree with the Parkland observation of there being a large hole in the back of JFK's head? I mean, let's go easy on each other, fellows. I have a sneaking suspicion we are all on the same team. Hi Robert, Yes I do agree with the Parkland observations regarding a wound in the back of the head. I don't believe that all these people could make the same wrong description. Besides, their observations are supported by a majority of the Bethesda witnesses who also describe a wound in the back of the head. Where Mr. Josephs and I part ways is that I believe the photos and x-rays are forgeries and he believes the wounds have been altered. Now, I don't have a problem with anyone who doesn't believe what I do. People are free to come to their own conclusions. What I do have a problem with are people who get belligerent and condescending when you don't accept their theories. If you have to resort to name calling, it's usually because you don't have an intelligent rebuttal. Now concerning a certain hockey bet. Do we really have to take Beiber? Take care, Scott Edited March 11, 2014 by Scott Tame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I posted a simple request which evidently got deleted ?? Mr. Tame... can you post any evidence that justifies your conclusion that the following photos and xrays are forgeries... and/or how, when and where it was done ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) David If you look at the back of head photo, you can see that JFK's head is tilted quite far back, and we are viewing a good portion of the top of his head, as well as the back. This can be proven by looking at a photo of JFK from 22-11-63 prior to the assassination. Normally, JFK's hairline at the back of his head is even with the bottom of his ear. In the BOH photo, the hairline is way below the ear, indicating either the head has been tilted back or the photographer is taking the photo from an angle that places him more above the head. If we then compare this to the photo on the left, an obvious question must be asked. What happened to the brain and skull matter and the long hair? At least one of these photos must be a forgery. Edited March 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now