David G. Healy

Thanks, David. Looks solid. Goes to show how little I know after reading about twenty books this is the first I heard of this cleanliness a good ways down the hall from godliness. One more reason why Im not a "researcher" just a gentle reader and democratizer of curiosity!?

When you have extra time ... read the statements of the witnesses .....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

limo photographs, and lack thereof.... you're expertise, yes? Now, can you answer question 8? Can you (perhaps SherryG.) deliver limo *post-assassination close-up* photographs? This question (thread) is NOT interested on witness testimony....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #09

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this

meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the

best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no

reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in

burying the NAA data?

eof

David--

What are the best sources on this limo-wash?

Nathaniel,

Joe L. Richards

Nurse Shirley Randall

WC XXI 217-226

Time mag. 11/29/63 pg 24

N Y Times 11/23/63 pg 2Bishop's book page 352

WManchester's book page 180

S S Agents Kinny & Hickey Volume XVIII-731 Volume XVIII-763.

DPD Chief Curry's book pg 36.

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #08

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has

asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret

Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene

procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?

Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned

action?

eof

My message to Mr.Brennan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/The...pg?t=1208718242

nearly as inteligent as David Von Pein -- keep coming back, son! BTW, we're waiting for that information you have... [chortle]

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #07

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of people testified

or asserted that the limo either slowed dramatically, or actually came to a very

brief stop. Why can't this be seen in the extant Zapruder film by the casual

viewer?

Recently, the lie was put forth that those closest to the limo never asserted

that the limo stopped - the implication being that only those far away reported

a limo stop. Yet it's striking that a limo stop *WAS* reported by those closest

to the limo, as well as those further away. Can anyone offer an explanation

that don't involve Z-film alteration?

eof

you're a welcome addition John....

David Healy

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #06

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,

and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his

statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would

have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the

bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.

Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you

remember?

Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots

hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Mr. BELIN - Where was he?

Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that

time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up

and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were

trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the

first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.

Mr. BELIN - The President's car?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was

standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped

completely.

Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?

Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.

Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment

there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.

Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of

shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the

Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why

was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of

the WCR?

And why will *NO* LNT'er or xxxxx present a reasonable, non-conspiratorial

answer to that question?

eof

IF, IF this is a man, he cannot be a shooter!

Why not?

Because his view of the approaching, moving target is blocked, if he places his rifle barrel, as he must do, between the fence slats as BM said that he would do were he Shorty.

Miles, If Hat Man didn't shoot, then who else caused the shot to be heard from that location and the smoke to be seen drifting out from under the trees?

I might add that the latter photo is a joke because there are no smaller trees between Hat Man in Moorman and the president, thus your photo angle is misleading, which is not unexpected IMO.

So if we have your past conclusions all added up ... Bowers didn't see anyone directly out in front of him - meaning he didn't see Hat Man ... he didn't see the alleged real shooter who caused the smoke - he didn't see the alleged Duncan floating cop torso, but he somehow could see plaid designs on peoples clothing from 300 feet away. Now don't you feel silly yet?

Hi Gary....

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question 05

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

It's amusing to see how the trolls and LNT'ers are running away from this

evidence in the JFK assassination. Of course, they have to - the evidence has

*NEVER* been in the WCR's favor.

5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,

changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts

that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How

could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a

fellow police officer?

eof

From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:

On his website, Dale Myers asks: "Isn't it true that you incorrectly modeled the presidential limousine, positioning Connally's jump seat six inches from the inside of the door rather than the actual distance of 2.5 inches?

Myers answers: "No. One critic claimed that I "used the incorrect limo measurement of a 6 inches clearance between JBC jump seat and door. The actual measurement was 2.5 inches. So whatever trajectory [Myers] thought he proved was not what 'a single bullet' could have taken."

"This particular criticism stems from a comment made during the ABC News broadcast. At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence compares a diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated as seen in the Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some conspiracy theorists believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left. However, the six inch figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the distance between the jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as presumed by this critic, but instead referred to the distance between the center of Kennedy and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme right side of the limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5 inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the right-hand door."

Godzilla! I'd accepted the possibility that Myers felt his animation was "close enough" and had, step by step, made it more and more convincing, without his fully realizing that it was now yards if not miles away from an accurate depiction of the shooting. But I hadn't fully expected him to LIE in such a manner. I figured he would say that he'd mistakenly trusted the Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley, but that this mistake was of no importance.

After all, on June 4, 1964, during the sworn testimony of Thomas Kelley (5H129-134, the same Arlen Specter-orchestrated testimony in which Kelley falsely stated that CE 386 was used to mark the back wound during the re-enactment), the following exchange took place:

Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?

Mr. KELLEY: There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and the door.

When blaming his mistake on Kelley, moreover, Myers could also have pointed to the 1979 HSCA trajectory report, in which Thomas Canning claimed : "Connally, on the other hand, was seated well within the car on the jump seat ahead of Kennedy; a gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated this seat from the car door." (As Canning was a NASA scientist, and meticulous in the presentation of his findings, his representation of a gap of 2.5 inches (roughly 5 cm) as only "slightly less" than 15 cm (roughly 6 inches) is thoroughly out-of-character and suggestive that he, or the committee itself, was trying to hide that Kelley had testified incorrectly to the Warren Commission.)

But no, Myers never even mentions these deceptive assertions in his response. Apparently, we're to believe it's just a coincidence that Kelley falsely testified that the seat was six inches in from the door, Canning helped cover up that Kelley falsely testified, and that Myers' animation just so happened to shift Connally's seat inboard 6 inches to its "actual" location.

Even more troublesome is Myers' own deceptive assertion that he bears no responsibility for the inaccurate perception that he placed the seat six inches from the door. No, he claims, it stems not from anything he'd said or done but from a misinterpreted voice-over by the now-deceased Peter Jennings on 2003's Beyond Conspiracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. When discussing Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Jennings says: "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year later. (Note: he's looking at the overhead view on the slide above): "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the slide up above). And turned to his right."

It is therefore Myers who is responsible for the mis-perception that his animated jump seat was six inches inboard of the door, and not Jennings!

Even worse, and as already discussed, it is not actually a mis-perception! When one compares the edge of the jump seat in in Myers' overhead views of the seat before and after he slides it inwards, it's absolutely and devastatingly clear that he slides the SEAT inwards six inches in both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet. He does not slide the middle of Connally's body over six inches on the seat. He slides the seat. Unless one is to believe that Connally's seat, in Myers' first image, is actually 3 1/2 inches outside the interior of the limousine, it is strikingly clear that Myers moves the seat 6 inches in from the door, and not 2 1/2. This fabrication by Myers--blaming his own deception on a dead man--in my opinion, marks a new low and reveals the depths that he will travel before he will admit the obvious--that his animation deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back.

In Myers' defense ( I can't believe I'm doing this) it's clear he's in a trap. He can't admit his "mistake" without risking all he's worked for. He sold his animation to large entertainment corporations under the assurance it was accurate. He then snowballed this success to become a semi-visible ghost writer for Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. In the acknowledgments section, in fact, Bugliosi writes "no one helped me as much as Dale Myers, the Emmy Award-winning computer animation specialist...Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One." Included in Book One is Bugliosi's section on the single-bullet theory. Not surprisingly, he (or Myers) condemns conspiracy theorists for assuming that Connally was sitting directly in front of Kennedy by writing "In fact,Connally's jump seat not only was situated a half foot inside and to the left of the right door, but also was three inches lower than the backseat." This assertion has a footnote. As one might guess, it refers back to the inaccurate testimony of Thomas Kelley on June 4, 1964.

An 8-20-07 interview with Bugliosi by George Mason University's History News Network demonstrates Bugliosi's continuing reliance on Kelley's testimony. In this interview, Bugliosi rants:

"If you start with an erroneous premise, everything that follows makes a heck of a lot of sense. The only problem is that it is wrong. There’s no question that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy in the presidential limousine. He was seated to his left front. I have a photograph in Reclaiming History showing exactly where they were seated, and right along side of it I show sketches that they put in conspiracy books, [with Connally] right in front and the bullet is making a right turn and a left turn. But he was seated to [JFK’s] left front in a jump seat a half-foot in so the orientation of Connally’s body vis a vis Kennedy’s was such that a bullet passing on a straight line, through Kennedy, would have no where else to go, except to hit Governor Connally."

Should we tell Bugliosi that his defense of the single-bullet theory was in large part based on the "erroneous premise" that the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door? Or should we assume that Myers, who, after all, was on Bugliosi's payroll, has already set him straight?

email the to the appropriate HBO properties folks those involved with Bugliosis' script development. I can guarantee you we've not seen the last of Myers cartoon, nor has HBO and Tom Hanks....

Brown has just guaranteed himself a very well-paid job with a leading bank after he is booted out of office. Brown's claim that he has done this to help people get a foot on the housing ladder. Why was it he did not invite one chief executive of a building society to his meeting? They are the people who arrange for most of the mortgages in the country.

What ever happened to public housing?

Allowed to run down into a sink state. Council housing now equates to failure in the minds of many Brits, which was of course, as intended.

One of Thatcher's many long-term blights was the selling off of council houses -- along with her crap and mayhem (and unbelievably evil) dogma that the "market will regulate itself" (deregulation on a grand scale...luvvely jubbely for the City and big corporations). Selling off council houses brought billions into the treasury coffers and, at the same time, turned millions more Brits into debt slaves, and, at the same time, made whoppee for the banks and financial sector via the immense surge in mortgages................ now come home to roost for, probably the next 100 years of trickle down misery for one and all -- well, not all, those of a wealthy inclination are not to be disadvantaged in this well thought out scenario.

It has been an absolutely disgrace of applied evil imo.

I think John is right and that Brown will join Bliar in an American bank. My money is on Goldman Sachs - an investment bank that has had a close connection to him for many years now.

where's Ronald "...what crises...." Reagan when you need him?

Defend the Warren Commission Report findings? The 45 Questions

Question #04

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

Surprising no long term readers of this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk --dgh), the first three questions have

gone by with nothing more than ad hominem and denials.

4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the

source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the

claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many

eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot

from the left?

It won't surprise most people to understand that all the eyewitness reports put

the shot origins in locations that can be understood as the TSBD and the Grassy

Knoll. But what the LNT'ers can't do is point to all those people who *must*

have described shots coming from *other* directions... after all, one of their

favorite explanations for the second location is "echoes"... where would real

echoes be coming from? Buildings, of course. So where are they?

And most damaging of all, how can they explain those few eyewitnesses who

reported shots from both locations? (They can't... all they seem capable of

doing is pointing out how few of them did so - a sad argument when it's obvious

that so many people were *NOT* asked where the shots came from.)

Once again the evidence points directly to a conspiracy, and contradicts the

Warren Commission's Report.

eof

Defend the Warren Commission Report findings? The 45 Questions

Question #03

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

xxxxx 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

**********************************************************************

3. Why can no LNT'er (Warren Commission Report Supporter -dgh) explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is almost funny to watch...

eof

The complete impossibility that the lower edge of the hairline (scalp) entry as well as EOP entry being for impact of the bullet which struck at Z313 is clearly evident from a mere examination of a couple of photographs.

Therefore, it truely does not even take a smart person to recognize that, (assumption that the EOP entry is fact, which it most assuredly is), the EOP bullet entry DID NOT OCCUR at Z313.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

As has been stated on repeated occasions, the elongated nature of the skull penetration of JFK for the EOP entry, will, for all practical purposes, establish the exact position which his head was in at the time of impact.

(provided of course that one also has the downward angle of fire).

as always, Tom.... you're well ahead of most of us on specifics.... its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR

its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR

Was it that obvious?

just a tad

The complete impossibility that the lower edge of the hairline (scalp) entry as well as EOP entry being for impact of the bullet which struck at Z313 is clearly evident from a mere examination of a couple of photographs.

Therefore, it truely does not even take a smart person to recognize that, (assumption that the EOP entry is fact, which it most assuredly is), the EOP bullet entry DID NOT OCCUR at Z313.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

As has been stated on repeated occasions, the elongated nature of the skull penetration of JFK for the EOP entry, will, for all practical purposes, establish the exact position which his head was in at the time of impact.

(provided of course that one also has the downward angle of fire).

as always, Tom.... you're well ahead of most of us on specifics.... its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR

I see the usual trolls are still up to their hi-jinks on that forum. All they can offer is the same pseudo explanations generously mixed with tired juvenile insults. Ad hominem attacks and endless obfuscation are the last resort of a person who doesn't have the facts on his side. They try to bury you in a pile of irrelevant minutiae and then say you are too unintelligent to understand what they are saying. Like Holmes said - when all is said and done, the facts remain unchanged. If they are in fact being paid to do this nonsense, then whatever they are earning is too much.

"Like Holmes said - when all is said and done, the facts remain unchanged." Yep!

Defend the Warren Commission Report findings? The 45 Questions

Question #02

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

xxxxx 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 tochange 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

**********************************************************************

2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the

head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular

defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone

but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region

there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures

approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."? There is *no* part of the

Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not

admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of

medical witnesses. I've repeatedly asked LNT'ers to point to any part of the

Occipital that CANNOT be seen in the famous BOH photo - I've never had a reply,

even though the answer is simple - "no part".

There are few areas of this murder where there's such a large number of

corroborating eyewitnesses. (The limo slowdown is another example that strikes

my memory...) LNT'ers have nowhere to go but to argue that these dozens of

eyewitnesses didn't really say what they said (This seems a favorite of John

McAdams), or couldn't have seen reliably what they said they saw - due to the

pressures of a short viewing time... or simply the old fallback of "eyewitness

testimony is the least reliable... etc" None of these excuses work when you

have dozens of corroborating eyewitnesses. Amazingly, you can't seem to draw

the admission out of any LNT'er that they don't believe the autopsy report, yet

they *can't* believe it. It clearly places a large wound in the back of JFK's

head - using medical terminology.

This boils down to a very simple issue - either the eyewitnesses and autopsy

report are accurate, or the BOH photo is. They cannot be reconciled, despite

the efforts of some to argue that the scalp was 'pulled up' for the photo. It's

clear why LNT'ers put their faith in the photos - they clearly support the lone

assassin theory. Either over 40 plus eyewitnesses, most of whom had medical

training; and the autopsy report are correct - or a photo that cannot be tied to

a camera, and has no chain of custody, and that shows signs of alteration - is

correct.

eof

45 questions/16 smoking guns beg answers. Perhaps Vincent Bugliosi author of Reclaiming History will drop by and answer the concerns these question pose?

The series is meant to stimulate conversation, discussion and debate... To this date, Warren Commission report support has been lukewarm at best, if at all.

DHealy 04-14-2008

_____________________________________

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

Defend the Warren Commission Report findings? The 45 Questions

Question #01

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 'XXX' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

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.

1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry

location of the head specified by the autopsy report, the bullet invariably

exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was

virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?

Lurkers might try to envision this - find the 'knot' of bone in the back of your

head, rather low... this is the external occipital protuberance (EOP). And as

Dr. Humes testified "...(the skull entrance wound is) just to the right and

below by a centimeter and maybe a centimeter to the right and maybe 2

centimeters below the midpoint of the external occipital protuberance. And when

the scalp was reflected from there, there was virtually an identical wound in

the occipital bone." (HSCA. Vol. 7: 246)

Now that you have the entry firmly in mind - remember that the presumed assassin

was in the 6th floor window - see if you can imagine such a trajectory *NOT*

exiting the face.

This was the problem faced by the Clark Panel and the HSCA - so they simply

moved the entry wound to one that would not create such an impossible

trajectory.

end #01 alt.conspiracy.jfk (USENET Google board)

"Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them."

Is that not in and of itself an opinion? Providing only insults......wow......the pot calling the kettle black.

I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum.

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment.

Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said.

***************************************************************

""Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them.""

I happen to agree with the above statement, but take a look at the tone of your reply.

"I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum."

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

You come off as a passive-aggressive, pompous little snit. The pot calling the kettle black, indeed!

"Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment."

And, as far as brown-nosing the admin goes, that, and $3.50 American, may get you a cup of Starbucks.

"Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said."

Especially, since everything you've said has already been stated dozens of times before. And, what makes you think that anyone will give a rat's patootey about what you've just redundantly implied, here?

Why don't you think before you make a statement, and use some logic in framing your rebuttals. Otherwise, you come off sounding no better than the ones you choose to attack.

Oh, and BTW, if you insist on accepting this as an "attack" from me, you are absolutely right. Take it as an example of your own ill-conceived handiwork.

Thank you for making my point perfectly clear.....you belong here Ms. Mauro.....you fit right in....

I was brown nosing no one simply stating my opinion, I assume there is a right to do that here is there not?

Perhaps the reason what I stated has been stated before is because it holds some validity. I have always thought that educated people could speak in a civilized manner, you are proof that they can not, you and so many others like you here on this forum.

It is very true that ignorance breeds contempt, and that is ever so apparent. You Ms. Mauro are the perfect example of one or the other.....I will allow you to decide.

*************************************************************

"It is very true that ignorance breeds contempt."

No, it's "Familiarity breeds contempt." You half-wit, since you've taken such relish in implying that I'm ignorant.

If that's your purpose here, to read for the infinite pleasure you obtain in order to express your bloviated, condescending attitude, then knock yourself out, Mister!

By all means, state your opinion seeing as you're no better than the rest of the people you take such pride and pleasure in slamming around here. Just remember, every time you toss one of your snide, little remarks out into the arena, there'll always be someone taking offense to your brand of ascerbic, and in this case, non-wit.

I see you haven't lost your touch, Terry.....

***********************************************

It's been hot as hell out here on the Pacific Coast today, David, literally.

as it is in Las Vegas....

"Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them."

Is that not in and of itself an opinion? Providing only insults......wow......the pot calling the kettle black.

I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum.

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment.

Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said.

***************************************************************

""Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them.""

I happen to agree with the above statement, but take a look at the tone of your reply.

"I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum."

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

You come off as a passive-aggressive, pompous little snit. The pot calling the kettle black, indeed!

"Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment."

And, as far as brown-nosing the admin goes, that, and $3.50 American, may get you a cup of Starbucks.

"Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said."

Especially, since everything you've said has already been stated dozens of times before. And, what makes you think that anyone will give a rat's patootey about what you've just redundantly implied, here?

Why don't you think before you make a statement, and use some logic in framing your rebuttals. Otherwise, you come off sounding no better than the ones you choose to attack.

Oh, and BTW, if you insist on accepting this as an "attack" from me, you are absolutely right. Take it as an example of your own ill-conceived handiwork.

Thank you for making my point perfectly clear.....you belong here Ms. Mauro.....you fit right in....

I was brown nosing no one simply stating my opinion, I assume there is a right to do that here is there not?

Perhaps the reason what I stated has been stated before is because it holds some validity. I have always thought that educated people could speak in a civilized manner, you are proof that they can not, you and so many others like you here on this forum.

It is very true that ignorance breeds contempt, and that is ever so apparent. You Ms. Mauro are the perfect example of one or the other.....I will allow you to decide.

*************************************************************

"It is very true that ignorance breeds contempt."

No, it's "Familiarity breeds contempt." You half-wit, since you've taken such relish in implying that I'm ignorant.

If that's your purpose here, to read for the infinite pleasure you obtain in order to express your bloviated, condescending attitude, then knock yourself out, Mister!

By all means, state your opinion seeing as you're no better than the rest of the people you take such pride and pleasure in slamming around here. Just remember, every time you toss one of your snide, little remarks out into the arena, there'll always be someone taking offense to your brand of ascerbic, and in this case, non-wit.

I see you haven't lost your touch, Terry.....

the below thread is posted here with the thread respondents' permission

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

From: Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>

Date: 30 Mar 2008 10:05:27 -0700

Local: Sun, Mar 30 2008 10:05 am

Subject: Re: For CT's: Why was Tippit Murdered? (A perfect example for the lies that trolls tell)

Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

In article <e254b93e-3af8-4842-bbea-1926dfeff...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.com says...

>On Mar 28, 11:06=A0pm, XXXXX XXXXXXX <xxxxx@xxx-xxx.com> wrote:

>> While most students of the Kennedy assassination that believe in

>> conspiracy have accepted the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald, in flight,

>> killed JD Tippit, the CT's that post here are a special breed of kook.

Translation - while CT'ers who aren't here to defend their belief in Oswald's

murder of Tippit, I'm sure they exist *somewhere*... in the meantime, the CT'ers

who are here on this forum, willing to defend their statements with citations to

the evidence, for some strange reason aren't in lockstep with these other

mythical CT'ers that exist somewhere...

Trolls need to lie to make their points, and yet; they aren't even *reasonable*

lies... they are, in many cases, simply silly.

>> Most kooks, like Dealey Plaza cardboard/popsicle stick

>> reconstructionist xxxx xxxxxxxxx,

Ad hominem attacks on those who merely present the evidence demonstrates the

problems that trolls have... the evidence simply doesn't support their faith, so

they have to criticize the messengers...

>> do not believe Oswald was near the

>> corner of 10th and Patton.

This *is* what the evidence shows. Trolls simply can't get around that fact.

>> Officer JD Tippit motioned a pedestrian who

>> resembled Oswald

And yet, the descriptions of this "pedestrian" *DON'T* "resemble" Oswald at all.

In fact, the *closest* eyewitness simply refused to identify Oswald as that

murderer... until he was pressured to do so months later.

Just as in the TSBD, the description of the person, and the description of the

clothing worn, simply don't match Oswald.

>> to stop for some questions...and, per the kooks, was

>> gunned down for some unknown reason

Tippit's murder never *was* investigated. They simply pinned it on Oswald, then

stopped the investigation.

We still don't even know *why* he was where he was...

>> by this still unknown (44 plus year later) assailant.

If you don't investigate, you aren't going to come up with any facts.

>> This killer fled, and left behind some pretty

>> incriminating evidence...

Yes... he did. It's a shame that due to political necessities they needed to

frame Oswald for it.

The real killers got away.

>> spent shells that are a perfect ballistic match

Here's another example of the lies that trolls tell. This xxxxx knows perfectly

well that the shells have *NO* chain of custody worth spit - and that the

description of these shells AT THE SCENE are different from the ones received in

evidence... you won't hear these facts from the xxxxx.

The shells that where marked in accordance with routine procedure suddenly

didn't have those markings when they got to the WC.

>> to the LHO pistol he was arrested with a half hour later, for

>> starters.

>> If Oswald was a patsy, why the need to kill Tippit?

What LNT'ers fail to understand is that there isn't necessarily any connection

AT ALL between JFK's assassination and Tippit's murder. Police in any large

city don't routinely decide that the same suspect must be involved when they

have two murders 30 minutes and miles apart.

In fact, the only *real* evidence of a connection is the inability of LNT'ers to

be able to explain Tippit's location. And the explanation for that leads

inexorably to conspiracy.

>> What's the

>> plotters' mindset here? The plotters already have Oswald's rifle, or

>> have planted a rifle that could be tied to Oswald, in the building he

>> worked at...they've accomplished their 'mission'.

That's far from the only thing needed for a frameup.

>> I'm sure no CT's will take a crack at this other than just a general

>> dismissive paragraph that Tippit was 'in' on it too, but even if

>> Tippit was some sort of co-conspirator, why kill him? He is looking at

>> the death penalty, too, if his role is 'discovered', so he isn't going

>> to talk anymore than the other 'plotters' that have stayed silent for

>> 44 years and counting.

Another obvious lie. Books have been written on the strength of those who've

talked about their part in the assassination. Indeed, one book is titled

"Someone Would Have Talked" - and details the number who did.

The lie that no-one has talked is a frequently asserted one, in spite of the

mountain of eyewitnesses who *HAVE* talked.

>> Let's grant the point that the slugs recovered from Tippit are

>> ballistically inconclusive as a definitive match to the Oswald pistol.

This, of course, is merely the truth.

The FBI, with presumably the best ballistics experts in the world, couldn't

match 'em up - so the WC went "expert shopping" and found someone who would.

Given the obvious bias on the part of the FBI, it's a testament to the honesty,

(or fear of discovery) that we have as much exculpatory evidence as we do have.

>> They still had uneven strike marks like the type of marks Oswald's

>> pistol would've left on that same ammo!

As *any* pistol would have on ammo not fitted to it. (Or, more accurately, as

any pistol would have on *ANY* ammo when the pistol's barrel has been changed

from factory standard)

This is a fairly weak argument, but it sounds impressive.

>> So what is the answer?

A conspiracy & frameup, of course. The fact that the evidence simply doesn't

support your faith is reason enough for you to lie about it. If the evidence

supported your belief, you wouldn't need to lie about the evidence.

>> Either Oswald killed JD Tippit, in obvious flight, for whatever reason

>> you want to insert, or someone who looked similar to LHO killed Tippit

>> and left ejected shell casings that are a ballistic match to his

>> handgun.

If Oswald killed Tippit, he did so prior to the time he would have been able to

get there - the police and WCR would not have engaged in a pattern of changing

the evidence for that time... the shells would not have mysteriously changed

from 'automatic' to revolver, the shells would still have been marked by the

officers at the scene, the radio transcripts wouldn't have required the

alterations they've had, photographs would have been taken of the scene to

include the shells in situ, real lineups could have been conducted, a real

investigation - to include why Tippit was where he was, would have been

conducted, the fingerprints would have been a vital clue, rather than being

falsely labeled as "smears", the wallet found would be in evidence, and so

forth...

>> So instead of arguing bushy hair or 1:06pm or whatever,

Translation: Instead of arguing the evidence... let's presume who the killer

was, and proceed from there...

>> let's hear the

>> reasoning behind an Oswald double killing a cop for no reason.

>I know, LNers hate when you answer with a question, but one is needed

>to be asked first before you can attempt to answer your question

>Chuck. It is vital to the whole story. Why was Tippit in the Oak

>Cliff section anyway? This is the key question as it made the whole

>story of LHO fleeing and shooting the cop possible. All other cops

>were in the downtown area due to the assassination so I wonder what

>Tippit was doing in this northern section of town anyway.

Sadly, the only real explanation for Tippit being where he was must have

involved a conspiracy and frameup. This is indeed a real problem for LNT'ers.

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.

[...]

ahh, what version of the Zapruder film will be tested, the alleged camera-original currently lodged at NARA, that film?

Who, what, when and where will this testing be performed? For any such test to be deemed credible the likes of a David Lifton, Harry Livingstone, John Costella, David Mantik along with Roland Zavada or a credential verified Roland Zavada type need to be present... Time for the Gary Mack's, the Tink Thompson's, the 6th Floor Museum and its adherents, WCR advocates and diehards of the world to step aside... Nothing short of full 'film' forensic testing will suffice...

No such luck, Healy. The test mentioned was a test I proposed to Chad Zimmerman, who agreed it would be an interesting test. It entails filming a simulated head shot fired by a rifle identical to the proposed assassination rifle with a camera identical to Zapruder's, from the same angle as Zapruder at 313. I believe that, if the bullet really impacted on the BACK of the head at this time, there oughta be backspatter visible on the Z-film. Instead, and as even admitted by Bugliosi in his book, there's nothing. Such a test could convince people that hey, something's wrong here, and that hmmm, maybe the bullet at 312/313 actually impacts where we see the impact, at the supposed exit.

sigh- a waste of bandwidth, what you need to do Spear is this: get past trying to impress Chiropractor Zimmerman about anything concerning this case..... talk to David Mantik, unless he won't speak to you? Send a request to Jim Fetzer, he'll get it to David Mantik Ph.D., M.D.?

Bugliosi? What? Reclaiming History was a colossal *book-publishing* failure, why should any thinking individual give Bugliosi one single ounce of credibility? Can you tell me what part of RHistory Bugliosi wrote? The only one hyping Bugliosi these days is David Von Pein, a guy that can't keep out of trouble on internet USENET boards and forums, fact is, he's been thrown off all of them, including this one...

You guys want to impress Hanks, have David Lifton give you a reccommendation...

Quotes by Tom, responses by Pat.

"Due to the poor quality of the Zapruder film, it is most unlikely that a small backsplash mist of cerebral tissue and/or cerebral tissue combined with small amounts of blood would or could even be seen in the film."

You should be happy to hear that this might very well be tested in the near future.

[...]

ahh, what version of the Zapruder film will be tested, the alleged camera-original currently lodged at NARA, that film?

Who, what, when and where will this testing be performed? For any such test to be deemed credible the likes of a David Lifton, Harry Livingstone, John Costella, David Mantik along with Roland Zavada or a credential verified Roland Zavada type need to be present... Time for the Gary Mack's, the Tink Thompson's, the 6th Floor Museum and its adherents, WCR advocates and diehards of the world to step aside... Nothing short of full 'film' forensic testing will suffice...

Al Carrier said something to me that maybe you can confirm or deny .... Al states that you and he have met. In talking about his meeting you, Al stated .... "I was a gate guard at Puerto Limon in '81 when we met there or at SOA later when he saw me there?" Is the statement Al made accurate????

Thanks![/b]

Is the statement Al made accurate????

The correct question would be: Is ANY statement Al made accurate???

A professional would not say what you did. Al has since contacted me and made me aware that I confused you with Tosh Plumlee (Tom vs. Tosh). So yes, Al's statement was correct and it was I who got it wrong. Al has worked everything from CSI to assisting in the protection of the President of the United States. The man is no fool, unlike other individuals that I can think of.

Miller give it a break.... so what? A regular traffic cop in Duluth could make the same claim.... You blow a claim, misquote and then identity the wrong person....then you blame the other side of the argument...? You're a priceless Lone Nutter in CT clothing (not to mention a joke).... Gawd bless you!