Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Lifton, Fetzer and Mantik said the Zapruder film was faked, but Groden and Thompson said it was not faked but was instead clear proof of a conspiracy.

There was no consensus, Sandy. Never was.  And LNs have successfully used this lack of consensus to make us all look loopy.

That is why I decided to take a look at the evidence under the assumption it was legit.

This is exactly right. This is the whole problem with this CT community. It's amazing to me how the available record - photos, the Z film, etc - SHOW conspiracy.  Which is why in the case of the Z film it was suppressed from the general public until 1975. It's also why "expert" reporter Dan Rather lied about what he saw on nationwide TV describing the film on  11/24. I had already shown this from the internal (as in not for public viewing) FBI film that was made I believe 6 months after 11/22.  In it, there it is plain to see is the Z film in black and white.  Except for it having no color, it's the exact same film we see today, showing the timing of the shots negates the SBT fantasy, the violent snap back of the body and so on. So from that point until 1975 when the Z film was shown, what has changed? Absolutely nothing.

But it's just never enough, that people want to see what they WANT to see in these photos and films. A good example is Sandy saying he "saw" one of the old guys down on the knoll in the Nix/Muchmore film holding what he "thought" was a pistol.  When I called him out on it, he "laughed it off" by making a joke of it.

And Cliff - several posts back I said it looks like you think all photos and films are faked.  Remember your reply? It was "EXCUSE ME?"

Well, here we are - you DO seem to think everything is faked here without taking it for what it is - evidence proving conspiracy without reverting to the far more Intellectually lazier way to go by screaming everything if FAKE!!! 

[Michael Walton]

And Sandy remember the ball throwing one?  That too was very very funny of you...and very wrong as well LOL

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

And Sandy remember the ball throwing one?  That too was very very funny of you...and very wrong as well LOL

Well don't tell me that, tell the man whose laws of physics prove you wrong. Yes, Isaac Newton. The man who also invented calculus. Tell the hundreds of thousands of physicists, virtually all of whom would say you're wrong. (There are probably a handful who belong to the Flat Earth Society and who might agree with you.)

Speaking of the FES, I read what a member wrote the other day. He reasoned, if the Earth's gravity is so strong that it can hold the ocean up around Australia (you know, on the "bottom" of the world), then how is it that a mosquito can escape gravity's grip and fly around unfazed? To which I thought, yeah, sounds like Walton reasoning to me.

 

[David Josephs]

5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Well, here we are - you DO seem to think everything is faked here without taking it for what it is - evidence proving conspiracy without reverting to the far more Intellectually lazier way to go by screaming everything if FAKE!!! 

You have to be, without a single doubt,

- the least curious
- the least interested
- and the least qualified

yet you remain

- the most vocal critic
- the most confused by other people's curiosity and interest in the subject
- the most prolific poster of vapid statements this forum has known

==================================

What is your real problem Mike? 

You a closet McAdams-ite and are just here to stir the pot or are you truly as dense and uninquisitive as your posts suggest?
In your extremely limited opinion you see Conspiracy, yet G~d forbid you should have to do any work or miss an opportunity to disparage other people doing work...

You have to be one of the laziest, do-nothing "CT" we've ever had...  

"It's Obvious" is no way to go thru life discussing anything...  what you see in your mind's eye is so convoluted that you just can't offer any explanation - so you don't even try

Guess we should be thankful for little favors...

5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

But it's just never enough, that people want to see what they WANT to see in these photos and films

Cause you know so much about people and their needs and desires, right Mike 

What a wonderful environment we could have here if you were to realize that your "confusion" is both understood and expected.  That maybe, just maybe it's worth shutting up for a little while so the grown-ups can have a serious discussion... reading what is offered and learning something...

But you're just too omniscient to allow so much to just slide... right? 

You keep sticking a fork in your eye at the kid's table Mike...  Your contribution here as court jester is cute and all... but you'd think there'd be something better for a perceived grown-up to do with his time than throw "I'm so confused by y'all" tantrums in the corner which do nothing but bring light to who you are and what you're doing...

You're a real contribution to the cause Mike...

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This is exactly right. This is the whole problem with this CT community. It's amazing to me how the available record - photos, the Z film, etc - SHOW conspiracy.  Which is why in the case of the Z film it was suppressed from the general public until 1975. It's also why "expert" reporter Dan Rather lied about what he saw on nationwide TV describing the film on  11/24. I had already shown this from the internal (as in not for public viewing) FBI film that was made I believe 6 months after 11/22.  In it, there it is plain to see is the Z film in black and white.  Except for it having no color, it's the exact same film we see today, showing the timing of the shots negates the SBT fantasy, the violent snap back of the body and so on. So from that point until 1975 when the Z film was shown, what has changed? Absolutely nothing.

But it's just never enough, that people want to see what they WANT to see in these photos and films. A good example is Sandy saying he "saw" one of the old guys down on the knoll in the Nix/Muchmore film holding what he "thought" was a pistol.  When I called him out on it, he "laughed it off" by making a joke of it.

And Cliff - several posts back I said it looks like you think all photos and films are faked.  Remember your reply? It was "EXCUSE ME?"

Well, here we are - you DO seem to think everything is faked here without taking it for what it is - evidence proving conspiracy without reverting to the far more Intellectually lazier way to go by screaming everything if FAKE!!! 

Then please explain (with regards to the extant Zfilm) how someone gets shot in their front right temple (100ft away) with a violent snap back of the body, without rear damage or ejected brain matter on film.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1px9bmzIAYJDddknrtuRc6PQuTf4vadf5/view?usp=sharing

The camera movement between z313-z314(see sprocket holes) may help.

[Joe Bauer]

Wherever the head shot bullet entered no one disputes it's damage was like an exploding missile.  JFK's head/skull actually expanded outward noticeably in the top upper right front and back skull area once the bullet penetrated.

The blood, brain matter and bone spray was so wide spread it formed a very visible pink "cloud" that went many feet in the air above and hit others 10 feet away.

For those who have hunted large animals and made head shots upon them I would ask them if this JFK skull and brain matter explosion was typical or at all possible with the type of bullets the Carcano used?

Just pointing out the implications of conspiracy if another bullet besides the others was used on the head shot.

[Chris Davidson]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1olmFofb-iaMj-oPEwNUR9uQElCS7tvvj/view?usp=sharing

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Wherever the head shot bullet entered no one disputes it's damage was like an exploding missile.  JFK's head/skull actually expanded outward noticeably in the top upper right front and back skull area once the bullet penetrated.

The blood, brain matter and bone spray was so wide spread it formed a very visible pink "cloud" that went many feet in the air above and hit others 10 feet away.

For those who have hunted large animals and made head shots upon them I would ask them if this JFK skull and brain matter explosion was typical or at all possible with the type of bullets the Carcano used?

Just pointing out the implications of conspiracy if another bullet besides the others was used on the head shot.

Hunting ammo is designed to explode upon impact. Military ammo is designed to cut through. The only time military ammo explodes is when it hits bone on a tangent. This is what Dr. Clark thought happened and this is what I came to believe as well.

This is discussed in chapter 16b.

From chapter 16b:

Just hours after the assassination, Dr. Clark told the nation at a press conference that the wound "could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." And from there his resolve grew stronger. Over the next few weeks, in interview after interview, Dr. Clark repeated such claims and was considered so credible that as late as December 23, 1963, Medical Tribune and Medical News was still reporting that the fatal bullet struck "a tangential blow that avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue as the bullet left the skull on a glancing course."

Dr. Clark was just not one to back down. Months after he'd been told the conclusions reached at autopsy, in fact, Dr. Clark told the Warren Commission that, in his impression, the large head wound was a--drum roll, please--"tangential wound." To his eternal credit, moreover, Dr. Clark also told the Warren Commission why he suspected as much. On March 21, 1964, he testified that if a bullet “strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, it is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow. Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual line it was proceeding.” Dr. Clark had thereby testified that, in his opinion, the injury to Kennedy's brain was more extensive than would be expected if the bullet had simply entered low on the back of the head. As he only inspected the brain at the large defect, moreover, he had  testified that, in his opinion, a bullet had transited the skull along the surface of this defect, i.e., that this defect did not appear to be the exit for a bullet entering elsewhere. He'd also voiced his suspicion that splinters of bone had been blown into the brain at this location.

That splintering along the skull's inner table is symptomatic of a tangential wound, moreover, has long been noted. The caption to a photograph taken at the Army Medical Museum after the Civil War, and found in a collection of civil war medical reports available from BACM research, relates "The specimen is an excellent illustration of that variety of fracture of the skull, in which the outer table remains intact, and the thinner and more friable vitreous table is splintered: an accident resulting always, it is believed, either from a shock of a projectile striking the cranium very obliquely, or else from a comparatively slight blow from a body with a large plain surface." 

That small pieces of bone were, shockingly, when one thinks of it, blown into Kennedy's brain at the supposed exit location was confirmed, by the way, by the January, 1965 report on the assassination by Dr. Finck given to his superior, Gen. Blumberg. Finck described the inspection of the brain as follows: “No metallic fragments are identified but there are numerous small bone fragments, between one and ten millimeters in greatest dimension, in the container where the brain was fixed.” This blowing of numerous small bone fragments, or splinters, into and onto the surface of the brain would have to have occurred at the large defect by Kennedy's temple, where small pieces of bone were never recovered. The two suspected entrances at the back of the head, after all, were barely the circumference of the bullet. 

It seems entirely too much a coincidence then that all the large head wounds affiliated with 6.5 mm ammunition in the Fiji Campaign were tangential wounds, and that the first doctor to inspect the large head wound on Kennedy thought it was a tangential wound, and that numerous bone fragments were removed from the surface of Kennedy's brain, and that such fragments are symptomatic of, yessirree, tangential wounds.

It is also intriguing to know that Dr. Clark never really wavered from his suspicion that the wound was "tangential." While he testified to the Warren Commission that the wound could be other than a tangential wound, he only did so after being asked one of Arlen Specter's infamous leading questions...

Mr. SPECTER - The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J. Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the Joint opinion that the wound which I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm. and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet in the President's head at a time when the President's head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting from the center of the President's skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull reconstructed, which had been brought to them---would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which you have personally observed?
Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. 

Well, jeez Louise. Specter may as well have asked him "If the doctors said something could be black would you agree it could be black?" As Clark's acceptance of the "official" story was conditional on both Specter's false description of Kennedy's position at the time of the head shot ("with his chin dropping into his his chest") and his false description of the trajectory from the entrance observed at autopsy to the large defect on the top of Kennedy's skull ("a more or less straight course"), it's clear that Clark never really agreed with what Specter was selling. 

Unfortunately, he rarely spoke on the subject after his testimony. Perhaps we now know why.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Pat Speer

[Chris Davidson]

9 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 

But it's just never enough, that people want to see what they WANT to see in these photos and films. 

Well, here we are - you DO seem to think everything is faked here without taking it for what it is - evidence proving conspiracy without reverting to the far more Intellectually lazier way to go by screaming everything if FAKE!!! 

ITEK excerpt, 1975:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QzwUrn9I-GZwdDhoRzaH-n86Mdg9Z468/view?usp=sharing

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Hunting ammo is designed to explode upon impact. Military ammo is designed to cut through. The only time military ammo explodes is when it hits bone on a tangent. This is what Dr. Clark thought happened and this is what I came to believe as well.

Pat - what are your thoughts on this. The only thing that does make me wonder is the line has to go upward to get it to come out as a tangential wound.  And I think you are right with that BTW and I also think Kemp was too:

Somehow that shot had to have taken place because the open cranium wound does show beveling - meaning an outshoot.  It's just mind-boggling for me though to figure out *where* exactly you'd be able to get it off.  Chris D showed elsewhere that it'd be very hard to get from the underpass and there were people there too.

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There was no consensus, Sandy. Never was.  And LNs have successfully used this lack of consensus to make us all look loopy.

And by denying consensus on the T3 back wound the best case for conspiracy is muddled.

The autopsists placed the back wound at T3 (the autopsy face sheet), T2 (just above the upper margin of the scapula), and T1 (14cm below the right mastoid process.)

How you picked T1 out of that mess is baffling, Pat.

And by pretending that the bullet defects in the clothes match a T1 wound -- you are flat-out trying to gaslight us.

It's notable that in 2014 you assumed the mantle of Gaeton Fonzi but your 2013 presentation on the back wound ignores the clothing defects entirely.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Chris Davidson]

Disregard Jackie's position.

https://ibb.co/bXvanw

[Michael Crane]

It would be nice to see the film that Dino Brugioni saw that describes the halo of debris exiting the skull.Not only is there some hanky panky going on,but I believe that a shot to the back of the head was also removed prior to the head snap.

[Michael Walton]

16 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

It would be nice to see the film that Dino Brugioni saw that describes the halo of debris exiting the skull.Not only is there some hanky panky going on,but I believe that a shot to the back of the head was also removed prior to the head snap.

It's easy to find - just look it up on YTV...

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Disregard Jackie's position.

https://ibb.co/bXvanw

The problem with that position obviously is the exit wound would have gone right through and out the left side of the head. There's nothing in the record stating that.