Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions
Question #30

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend
the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two
semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the
troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most
of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's
only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply
deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or
simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill
files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk
**********************************************************************

I've decided to repost this one - since no-one has even tried to answer it. If
those who believe the Warren Commission Report want to defend it - they *MUST*
answer these questions... running away from them, or claiming that they are
"dead on arrival" or have "already been answered" simply won't do the trick.

If there are any honest LNT'ers out there - I won't hold you to trying to
justify McAdams lies about this - just answer the first question below.

30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the Autopsy Report
contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report stated that the wound extended to
the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp... this simply cannot be seen
in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able to point to *any* part of the
Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo - yet the autopsy report, *all*
prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large wound here that was devoid of
bone and scalp.
eof

David,

I was waiting for this one to come around. This to me is the single largest pot o poo in the entire case. I have been reading High Treason 2, and if there is one thing Livingstone drives home it is the differences between the autopsy reports, and the x-rays, and the BOH photos.

He relates an interesting interview with Jerol Custer. Custer relates the day after the autopsy that Ebersole came to him with skull fragments, and bullet fragments and had him xray some of those fragments together. Custer relates the reason given for this is so that a bust could be made of JFK. Custer also states he knew it was a BS job from the word go.

Custer also relates a complete mushroomed bullet falling out of JFK's back during the xray procedures the night before.


Mike

He's Back!

David, I was about through with a long-winded response when the storm hit and pretty well shut it off. (for the better no doubt).

SO!

In review of the autopsy report as well as Hume's autopsy notes and Dr. Boswell's drawings.

Do these items agree that JFK had a wound which encompassed the top of the head as well as extending into the occipital region at the rear of the head/skull which had fractures and fragmentation as well as some areas of missing skull bone?

When one compares this verbal information with that of the Parkland personnel, as well as Clint Hill's statement, do the two appear comparative?