Sandy Larsen Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along? The medical witness cover-up didn't begin until Sibert's call to the FBI Lab introduced everyone to the Magic Bullet. Everything the doctors said before that moment was gold -- everything they said after was garbage. So there were conflicting statements made at the autopsy? Some gold and some garbage? No wonder Lipsey's HSCA testimony was part gold and part garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along? The medical witness cover-up didn't begin until Sibert's call to the FBI Lab introduced everyone to the Magic Bullet. Everything the doctors said before that moment was gold -- everything they said after was garbage. So there were conflicting statements made at the autopsy? Not that I know of. Some gold and some garbage? No. The response from the FBI Lab brought the autopsy to a close. No wonder Lipsey's HSCA testimony was part gold and part garbage. Lipsey is 100% garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along? The medical witness cover-up didn't begin until Sibert's call to the FBI Lab introduced everyone to the Magic Bullet. Everything the doctors said before that moment was gold -- everything they said after was garbage. So there were conflicting statements made at the autopsy? Not that I know of. Some gold and some garbage? No. The response from the FBI Lab brought the autopsy to a close. No wonder Lipsey's HSCA testimony was part gold and part garbage. Lipsey is 100% garbage. I believe that Lipsey is generally correct in his reporting. Not as precise as I'd like. But honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along? The medical witness cover-up didn't begin until Sibert's call to the FBI Lab introduced everyone to the Magic Bullet. Everything the doctors said before that moment was gold -- everything they said after was garbage. So there were conflicting statements made at the autopsy? Not that I know of. Some gold and some garbage? No. The response from the FBI Lab brought the autopsy to a close. No wonder Lipsey's HSCA testimony was part gold and part garbage. Lipsey is 100% garbage. I believe that Lipsey is generally correct in his reporting. Not as precise as I'd like. But honest. He prevaricated about the back wound, the conclusions of the autopsists about the type of weapons used, the back shot entering the chest cavity. Lipsey has no credibility whatsoever. Edited September 23, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 RP: What if the darts missed and he ducked down? How would he know a dart missed him? RP:Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle? Umbrella? Who said anything about an umbrella? Not me! Free Louie Witt! One of these perhaps: Oh wow, a .45 ACP with a scope on it! LOL (a scope no less! on a frickin' handgun!) And from where did they fire at JFK with that thing, Cliff? Did it fire the dart from a standard .45 ACP cartridge or are you still believing in rocket propelled darts with tail fins on them? (say, if only the narrow front end of the dart entered the wound, and not the back end with the fins sticking out, would the back end of the dart still dissolve in the blood?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) It is a pitiable statement on the human condition that there are those in the world who will relentlessly, shamelessly twist, pervert, and desecrate the truth for their own selfish and self-aggrandizing purposes, without the faintest twinge of conscience or scruples. The shrill insistence that on 22 November 1963 John F. Kennedy "clutched" or "grabbed" at his throat is just such a perversion of facts that are so plain, so simple, so inarguable to any reasonably prudent person, that only the most pernicious and malignant assault on logic, perception, and soundness of mind could mount a war against them. John F. Kennedy's hands never went anywhere even close to his throat that bitter, traumatic day in Dallas. There is clear and certain visual proof of it for anyone who only will look—without bias, prejudice, or fixed ideas—and will tune out the chattering irrationality. It took no more than 0.429 of a second—less than half a second—for JFK's hands to go from this position... ...to THIS position... That's LESS than HALF a second. His clenched right hand is OUT IN FRONT OF HIS MOUTH, blocking it and part of his nose from Zapruder's view, and his left hand is further forward still, OUT IN FRONT of his right hand. Add to this obvious fact that Zapruder is ELEVATED, the camera pointing at a downward angle toward JFK—which means that JFK's hands would appear EVEN HIGHER from a viewpoint level with him. They are NOWHERE NEAR HIS THROAT. Here is how fast his position changed from Zapruder 225 to 232 in real time, meaning the time between these frames has been set according to the frames-per-second rate of the camera: That's just how fast his hands flew up IN FRONT OF HIS FACE. It is utterly daffy to state that his hands were "clutching" or "grabbing" at his throat, because that physically is impossible. Only 0.368 of a second later, his hands were at the position in Zapruder 238, so here that frame is added as in real time: It isn't to say that someone must be downright delusional to state that he is "clutching at his throat" when his clenched fists are obviously out in front of his face that way, or even that they would necessarily be on drugs, but it is to say that someone may as well state that his hands are behind his head. They aren't there, either. They are clearly clenched and in FRONT OF HIS FACE. And all of this has happened IN LESS THAN 8/10ths OF A SECOND. Now here is the sequence adding Zapruder frame 247 in real time, a little over half a second later: Are you looking at this, and SERIOUSLY trying to convince yourself that someway, somehow, he just HAS to be "clutching at" or "grabbing at" his throat, because you have been told it over and over and over and over and over? Are you going to keep listening to twisted disinformation, designed to do nothing whatsoever but confound and confuse, or will you merely LOOK at what you SEE? Can his right hand—up at least as high as the bottom of his right ear, and across his cheek—be "clutching at his throat?" Try it. See how you do. What about his LEFT hand? Where is it in relation to his RIGHT hand? This is continued in the next post... Ashton Gray Edited September 23, 2016 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 Continuing from the last post... Here is Zapruder 255 added to the sequence, and it comes just a little less than half a second later, in real time: And less than 0.185 of a second later is Zapruder 258, in real time: At no point in this sequence—which consumed BARELY OVER TWO SECONDS—do JFK's hands come anywhere near his throat. It is of course understandable that an impressionable young-teen girl who had not had a perfect angle on viewing JFK in a few traumatic split seconds, and who then had been prejudiced by Perry's lie at the press conference about a bullet entrance wound to the throat, might have been induced into believing and stating that he had clutched at his throat. It's an honest mistake. That's also understandable for the wife of a governor who had just been shot while sitting beside her—similarly getting an imperfect glimpse in a moment of high stress, similarly being lied to by Perry, the very man who obliterated the throat wound before any forensic analysis could be done. But here, now, with the benefit of the film, the full clear visual evidence proves conclusively, beyond any reasonable or rational doubt, that John F. Kennedy never once "clutched at" or "grabbed at" his throat. There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 RP: What if the darts missed and he ducked down? How would he know a dart missed him? RP:Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle? Umbrella? Who said anything about an umbrella? Not me! Free Louie Witt! One of these perhaps: Oh wow, a .45 ACP with a scope on it! LOL (a scope no less! on a frickin' handgun!) And from where did they fire at JFK with that thing, Cliff? Did it fire the dart from a standard .45 ACP cartridge or are you still believing in rocket propelled darts with tail fins on them? (say, if only the narrow front end of the dart entered the wound, and not the back end with the fins sticking out, would the back end of the dart still dissolve in the blood?) Do your own homework, Bob. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf The FBI men took the Prosectors' Scenario seriously. That you cannot is no one's problem but yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 RP: What if the darts missed and he ducked down? How would he know a dart missed him? RP:Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle? Umbrella? Who said anything about an umbrella? Not me! Free Louie Witt! One of these perhaps: Oh wow, a .45 ACP with a scope on it! LOL (a scope no less! on a frickin' handgun!) And from where did they fire at JFK with that thing, Cliff? Did it fire the dart from a standard .45 ACP cartridge or are you still believing in rocket propelled darts with tail fins on them? (say, if only the narrow front end of the dart entered the wound, and not the back end with the fins sticking out, would the back end of the dart still dissolve in the blood?) Do your own homework, Bob. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf The FBI men took the Prosectors' Scenario seriously. That you cannot is no one's problem but yours. No, I would like YOU to tell us all about this, Cliff. You want to keep shoving this garbage down our throats, back it up with explanations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) RP: What if the darts missed and he ducked down? How would he know a dart missed him? RP:Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle? Umbrella? Who said anything about an umbrella? Not me! Free Louie Witt! One of these perhaps: Oh wow, a .45 ACP with a scope on it! LOL (a scope no less! on a frickin' handgun!) And from where did they fire at JFK with that thing, Cliff? Did it fire the dart from a standard .45 ACP cartridge or are you still believing in rocket propelled darts with tail fins on them? (say, if only the narrow front end of the dart entered the wound, and not the back end with the fins sticking out, would the back end of the dart still dissolve in the blood?) Do your own homework, Bob. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf The FBI men took the Prosectors' Scenario seriously. That you cannot is no one's problem but yours. No, I would like YOU to tell us all about this, Cliff. I only go where the evidence leads, Bob. The autopsists asked the FBI men if there were rounds that wouldn't show up on x-ray, or in the body during autopsy. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab and was given the runaround. But the answer to the question was -- yes, there existed rounds which wouldn't show up in an autopsy, nor on x-ray. This is called a "lead" in a "murder case." That you are incapable of following this lead is not my problem. You want to keep shoving this garbage down our throats, back it up with explanations! More witness bashing. The autopsists didn't think it was garbage and neither did the FBI guys. Edited September 23, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 I'm not bashing witnesses, Cliff. I want you to do more than link us to a couple of vague reports. I want you to tell us, in your own words, where you think the assassin that delivered the dart stood. I want you to tell us what the delivery mechanism looked like, what the dart looked like and how the dart was propelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 I'm not bashing witnesses, Cliff. The hell you the aren't! I want you to do more than link us to a couple of vague reports. Tough shoot, Sherlock. Quit projecting your Pet Theorist mentality onto me. I want you to tell us, in your own words, where you think the assassin that delivered the dart stood. The throat shot came from somewhere in front. The back shot came from somewhere behind. JFK was murdered in a military-style ambush. The rest is speculation I'll leave to you guys. I want you to tell us what the delivery mechanism looked like, what the dart looked like and how the dart was propelled. Nothing vague in the testimonies of Senseney and Colby. It's a "lead," not a certainty. Savvy "lead"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 (edited) The autopsists said that the bullet entering near the EOP "tunneled" under the skin. From reading that I got the impression that the bullet had hit at such a tangential angle that it skidded down the back of the cranium. Lt Lipsey stated that the autopsists were sure that the bullet that entered near the EOP exited from the throat. Both Bob and I believe the bullet (or fragments thereof) could have gone down the neck and resulted in a projectile exiting the throat. I am partial to the possibility of that projectile being a shard of bone. Some have ridiculed that thought. One pointed to some WC testimony stating the the wound was smooth. Somehow that was supposed to have shown the projectile couldn't have been a chard of bone. Well here is some WC testimony I just read on another thread that pertains to this: "Dr. Jones: ....There appeared to be relatively smooth edges around the wound, and if this occurred as a result of a missile, you would have probably thought it was a missile of very low velocity and probably could have been compatible with a bone fragment of either--probably exiting from the neck, but it was a very small, smooth wound." Just wanted to point that out. Edited September 24, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 (edited) Here are the difference between Sandy, Bob et al and me: The doctors are Parkland entertained the possibility JFK suffered a collapsed lung. The doctors at Bethesda entertained the possibility JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in an autopsy. Sandy, Bob & Co. morph a possibility into a certainty. I take the Prosectors' Scenario seriously, but it's not a certainty. Edited September 24, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 (edited) When pet theory congeals into pet certainty the true believer turns totalitarian. It is a pitiable statement on the human condition that there are those in the world who will relentlessly, shamelessly twist, pervert, and desecrate the truth for their own selfish and self-aggrandizing purposes, without the faintest twinge of conscience or scruples. Brittle, bitter self-righteousness? Check. Suffocating self-importance? Check. Utter lack of self-awareness, or a sense of humor? Check, and check. The shrill insistence that on 22 November 1963 John F. Kennedy "clutched" or "grabbed" at his throat is just such a perversion of facts that are so plain, so simple, so inarguable to any reasonably prudent person, that only the most pernicious and malignant assault on logic, perception, and soundness of mind could mount a war against them. Garden variety witness bashing? Check. Ashton Gray is conducting a smear campaign on the following close proximity witnesses: From WC testimonies. <quote on> Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there? Miss Linda Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went. <quote off> <quote on> Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's automobile as it turned left off of Houston onto Elm Street? Mr. Clint Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9...Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left... <quote off> <quote on> Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck? Mrs. Nellie Connally: Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. <quote off> Gray's attempt to obfuscate the position of JFK's hands in front of the throat/chin requires no further comment. Edited September 24, 2016 by Cliff Varnell 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