T. Folsom

John, I made a "fuss" about Healy's lack of a bio for the following reasons. 1- He made a big "fuss" himself about my and other member's lack of photos. 2- When I pointed out to him that he needed to post his bio. He hypocritically and arrogantly refused. He gave the impression that he thought he was some how exempt. 3- He makes snide remarks about other people's bios. By doing so and not posting his own he was like a little kid throwing a snowball at someone then running to hide. 4- He takes the position that people without post production experience are not qualified to question his conclusion in TGZFH that the types of alterations to the Z-film alleged in that book were possible in 1963, yet he refuses to answer questions about his own experience producing composite images on film as opposed to video. 5- Bill Miller and Tim Carroll also made it clear they thought Healy should comply with rule # 1 of this forum. 6- While it's true that Healy has been a member since before the rules went into effect it is my impression that the rules apply new and old members equally. Unlike him virtually all members new and old have been in compliance since I joined. IIRC you and Andy insisted that even old members like Terry and Mike post their photos. 7- I didn't hear back from you. If you had told me on the forum or via e-mail or PM that you had asked Healy to comply I would have made less of a "fuss". 8- I agree that it's important that this forum, like all forums have rules of behavior. If some members are allowed to flaunt them what is to stop other members from doing so too – what's the point of having rules if they are not enforced? While it's true that there still are a few members are not in compliance reasons 1 – 5 do not apply to them. Len 3- He makes snide remarks about other people's bios. This guy's arrogance is unbelievable. I joined some time ago when biographies were not required and recently followed protocol and added my own and this Healy asshole immediatly insulted several points in my bio. Is this accepted behavior on this forum? Does this Healy asshole think he is king of the class or something? I've read a couple of his posts and he has said nothing that has impressed me at all. But I was glad to see that others were victims of this anti-social remarks as well. Of course I'm sure he has his nose right up the ass of any conspiracy nuts that join up--but being an Oswald-guilty devotee I was immediately in his sights I guess.

by all means take ALL the time you need to respond, *eternity* sounds about right, eh? Frankly, no one cares a wit, if you have patience, or about your "irons in the fire"... All this graduate and post graduate work, yet nothing published? Strange! psst, there's plenty new under the sun, you just gott'a know what rock to lift up! Such is the fate of the lone neuters You come across like a bit of an asshole. Is that all you do is lurk in the wings and wait to insult those you don't agree with?

I am everyone's favorite whipping boy T. Folsom; one of the few posters on this site that believes that ALL available evidence proves beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated Kennedy on his own with no help from anyone else. I was originally a die-hard conspiracy believer until I began to see through the paper thin theories that abounded and became convinced that the various conspiracy theories only asked questions and never really answered any questions. believing in conspiracy theories was fun but tutally unfullfiling since there were too many questions left unanswered. Once I began looking at the assassination assuming Oswald was guilty, EVERY single piece of evidence fit and made perfect sense and was logically sound. I am from Southern California but originally from elsewhere, I moved here after I graduated from a midwestern university with a degree in American History. After my move to California I completed my graduate and post- graduate studies in American History at two southern California universities. My areas of expertise are 19th century social history, westward migration, the Progressive Era, the 1950s, and the Kennedy assassination. I am married with several children and a growing number of grandchildren. I have worked at the same location for nearly 25 years and plan to retire from there in about another ten years. I am only able to post occasionally because I have a lot of irons in a lot of fires. So if my response is not forthcoming as soon as you would like, it is not because I am hiding, it is merely because I am busy with more important pursuits. I don't have a great deal of patience with ridiculous theories that have no basis in fact and there sill be NO theories or claims made on this site that I've not heard a hundred times elsewhere. As the Old Testament writer stated: There is no new thing under the sun. Never has this been more true than with the conspiracy nuts.

I was hoping you would add something; sadly you didn't. 1. If you think that the identification of Oswald as the gunman ONLY rests on Brennan you clearly haven't read much on this case. What is wrong with Brennan's identification by the way? He identified Oswald after the line up and stated why he refused to finger him that night. And the man he said did it is the man who owned the weapon matched to the bullets that came fro the body of one of the victims and the rifle that had Oswald and ONLY Oswald's palm print on it, and Oswald was the ONLY one carrying a suspicious package into work that day and Oswald was the ONLY employee that fled the scene never to return to the TSBD ever again. Your "only Brennan" comment was pretty lame. Read more. 2. Already been done and the bullet wounds ONLY line up with the SE corner window of the TSBD. To claim otherwise is to simply deny the research that has already been done. Both the WC and the HSCA experts determined that ALL shots struck Kennedy from above and behind to the right rear and the ONLY place evidence was found from behind and to the right rear was where Robert Jackson and Howard Brennan saw a gunman firing from and where Oswald and ONLY Oswald's prints were found. 3. Where did LHO get his ammo is moot. If that ammo is proven to have been fired from a particular rifle, (which it was) and if that ammo was matched to fragments in the victim (which it was) and if there is ONLY evidence linking to the rifle (which there is) and if we can explain how Oswald took the weapon to work with him and didn't leave with it (which we can) than the red herring of WHERE he bought his ammunition is as moot as demanding to know where a drunk driver who was arrested at the scene bought his car. This point you tried to make leads nowhere. 4. Are you seriously questioning why it is significant that after 40 years the conspiracy camp has been unable to produce a single bullet fragment to support their alleged gunman? If that point confuses you, you clearly are in way over your head in this debate. 5. Same point as I made in number 4. 6. You are simply dodging your position's total lack of evidence to support any other gunman firing at Kennedy. Your comment perfectly supports my point. You have no witnesses. 7. What in the world are you talking about? Do you really think that Oswald (or anyone else) was seen carrying a bag out of the building? Please provide the name of this person--it is news to me. Again your ignorance in the facts of this case hamper your ability to debate my points. 8. You totally missed the point I am making. There are NO prints that your conspiracy lovers have ever produced. ALL prints gathered thus far point to one and only one person--LHO. There are no other prints taken from any other site that I am aware of that would lend credence to your invisible gunman. Once you find these prints we will see if the location they were found agrees with the trajectory of the bullet wounds. You better home they find them a few inches from LHO's because that is the only place the bullet trajectories will line up with. Good luck. 9. The notion of a hired gunman who was a part of a conspiracy running from the scene of the crime with his rifle in hand (because remember there was no other rifles found in the TSBD and only Oswald's prints were found on the rifle found--therefore they must have taken the rifle with them--which by the way was NEVER mentioned by the witnesses who saw the alleged gunman fleeing to the awaiting Rambler) is such a silly notiong that it doesn't merit serious consideration. You expect the world to believe that these high level gunmen, secreted themselves into the TSBD without being seen by anyone, carried out the assassination from the SE corner window of the TSBD, got down the stairs without being seen by Officer Baker or Roy Truly or ANY other TSBD employee and then just made a mad dash to a waiting Rambler in full view of police, spectators, and the rest of the motorcade? You've got to be kidding. 10. We don't need a film of Oswald there is mountain of evidence linking him to the crime. Sadly YOUR gunman has neither any photgraphic evidence NOR any other evidence to link him/her/it to the crime. As I said in my original post. I have ALL of the evidence on my side of the table--all the conspiracy nuts have is suspicions and dreams of massive conspiracies.

The chief counsel and staff director to the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey evidently found Jack qualified enough to call as a witness: Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years. Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction, including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts. Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs. (HSCA Hearings, Volume II, page 322) Then please answer me this: If they thought so much of Jack White and his photographic "expertise" why did they reject out of hand his claims of alteration in the backyard photographs. If they were such fans of his wouldn't they have embraced his groundbreaking discovery? Seems like a bit of a contradiction here boys. Your bestest buddy, T.F.

Nice spin. A couple of reminders: Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors? Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry? Mr. WHITE. No. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography? Mr. WHITE. No. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in the study of shadows in photographs? Mr. WHITE. No. and later Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately---- I withdraw the question. That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photo-graphs in light of the head size; is that correct? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph? Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I realize you are not a scientist. Do you now whether scientists consider the use of transparency overlays to be a good way of detecting differences between soft edged images? Mr. WHITE. I have no way of knowing that. and Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question. Mr. WHITE. All right. Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph? Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different- Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically---- Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is? Mr. WHITE. No. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you. I think this falls under a public embarassment whether you were paid or not. Please keep in mind that Robert Groden was paid for his public embarassment also. Payment means nothing. Sorry about the bad memories, Jack.

T. Folsom, Several of us have pointed out to you that the holes in JFK's clothing are 2" to 3" too low for the SBT. You haven't yet responded. So how is that "fun" working out for you, so far? If you hope to divine a response to the physical evidence of conspiracy, one that doesn't involve claiming that clothing only moves in multi-inch increments, you're wasting your time. But hey -- that's what hobbies are all about anyway, eh? I'm surprised you are still whipping this dead horse. The Discovery Channel already resolved this apparent dilemma in their "Magic Bullet" analysis about two years ago. In that special, they had a double matching Kennedy's dimensions wearing clothing identical to Kennedys with metallic pins on the location of all wounds. When that individual STOOD up the wounds on the back appeared TOO low to line up with the frontal exit wound to the throat. However when they placed that double in a sitting position holding his arm in the same position the Zapruder film proves Kennedy was in around the time of the first shot that struck Kennedy his shirt AND jacket were raised up to the point that the marks on the body and the mark in the jacket and shirt matched EXACTLY. I'm sure you are aware of the photographs taken of the president's jacket riding up on his back as the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza. For me, that settled the issue completely. Your point is old and already moot based on scientific reenactments. Thanks for the softball pitch.

Alright Chuck, Let me get this straight. YOU claim that I am suffering from brain damage because I believe Oswald acted alone in assassinating. Let's look at this. On my side of the table I have: 1. The identity of a gunman 2. The identified gunman's fingerprint and palm prints at the site of the crime and on the murder weapon 3. Ownership of the rifle proven to be the murder weapon 4. Bullets traced to that and ONLY that rifle 5. Photographs of my suspect holding the murder weapon(s) with HIS OWN writing on the back of two of the photographs 6. The testimony of the accused gunman's wife that SHE took those photographs with her camera which was matched to those photographs to the exclusion of all other cameras on the planet 7. Several eyewitnesses placing my identified gunman in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination 8. A suspect who does NOT have a verifiable alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the assassination. 9. A suspect that fled the scene of the murder within 2 minutes of his crime 10. A suspect who in panicked flight from the law walked/jogged/ran to catch a bus that WOULD have stopped right across the street from his place oe employemt 11. A suspect that asked his cab driver to drop him off four blocks from his boarding house in a frantic attempt to cover his tracks 12. A suspect that picked up his revolver in the event he was apprehended following his crime 13. A suspect who murdered Officer J.D. Tippit in full view of several eyewitnesses when stopped and asked questions by said officer. 14. A suspect who attempted to murder yet another officer (Nick McDonald) when asked to stand up--declaring "Well it's all over now!"---NOT "Why are you here officer?" 15. Bullets recovered at the scene of the crime and the treatment lf the victims. 16. One bullet that matched my suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons on the planet 17. Fragments whose metalic composition did NOT point to ANY other weapon or any other manufacturer other than the Western Cartridge Company, which MY suspect owned and used. 18. My suspect was witnessed carrying a mysterious package into work that day which he maintained contained "curtain rods" however when he fled the building no package was with him, nor were any curtain rods found in the TSBD, however Oswald rifle WAS found there with his prints on the barrel and NO ONE else's prints on it, plus a paper package whose creases matched the dimensions of Oswald's disassembled rifle 19. Three spent cartridges found at the very window eyewitnesses testified they saw Oswald shooting from Now on your side of the table YOU have: 1. No identified gunman 2. No location which matches the trajectory of the bullet wounds in both victims 3. No bullet(s) 4. No bullet fragments 5. No spent cartridges 6. No reliable, verifiable eyewitness that can place your imaginary gunman anywhere 7. No rifle yet located even up to today's date (forty-four years after the fact) 8. No fingerprints 9. No escape from the crime detected by any of the hundreds and hundreds of individuals surrounding Dealey Plaza 10. No gunman appearing in any of the photographs or movies taken at the time of the assassination 10. Nothing, nothing, nothing And YOU claim that it is ME that is suffering brain damage? You will excuse mi if my laufter pravnets mi frum beng abel too right corectly. The tragic comedy of your ridiculous position is evident to every coherent reader. Thanks for the softball pitch.

I am an "enemy agent" or I am "brain damaged"? It is endlessly hilarious to observe the number of tactics conspiracy nuts will employ to avoiding answering basic questions for which they have no facts to support their theories. There is always one way to stir up the antpile among the conspiracy nuts-----ASK QUESTIONS. That was true when I started researching the assassinatio in the early 70s and is hasn't changed one bit in the new century.

I am one of those converted LHO guilty advocates. I was a die-hard conspiracy believer until about 1980. I began studying the Kennedy assassintion in earnest following the publication of "November 22, 1963: You are the Jury" however at that time I was more convinced in Josiah Thompson, Mark Lane, and Edward Epstein's views than I was of David Belin's. But the more I read of the assassination and especially the more I read conspiracy-oriented books, "Rush to Judgement," "Six Seconds in Dallas," "Who Killed Kennedy," "They've Killed the President", "The Assassination Tapes," "The Second Oswald" etc... I soon found that these authors didn't really solve the case. In fact they never provided ANY answers. I saw very quickly that conspiracy believers were much better at standing on the sidelilnes and asking question sthan they were in stepping onto the field and providing answers that agreed with logic, common sense, and the known evidence. Then with the findings of the HSCA and the public discredting and embarassment of Jack White for his supposed photographic "expertise" I started to smell a rat. By 1980 I began examining the evidence with an "Oswald Guilty" frame of mind and EVERYTHING suddenly made perfect sense. Questions I had always struggled with now made perfect sense. Questions like the backyard photographs (of which there was no credible evidence of forgery), Oswald's autograph on the back of one of those photographs, Oswald taking the package of "curtain rods" to work, Oswald's unexpected trip to Ruth Paine's house on November 21st, Oswald fleeing the scene after the assassination, Oswald walking/jogging/running seven blocks to catch the very bus that would have stopped across the street from the TSBD, Oswald leaving the bus in a panic when it stalled in traffic, Oswald having the cab driver drop him off four blocks past his North Beckley boarding house, Oswald taking a gun with him after leaving the boarding house, Oswald's shooting of Tippit (which was iron-clad based on the evidence, in my mind), Oswald's attempted murder of Officer McDonald, Oswald's numerous lies while being interrogated, Oswald's failure to implicate any co-conspirators, and Oswald's lies concerning his rifle ownership. When I assumed (hoped) Oswald was innocent, NONE of these facts made any sense. Once I assumed Oswald was guilty, then EVERY single fact in the case made perfect sense. It rang true. Since my conversion EVERY SINGLE conspiracy book has rehashed old material without solving ANYTHING. Points that have been disproven for years are still brought up as if they were brand new. I cannot believe that in over forty years no one in this so-called conspiracy has ever talked. That thought alone boggles rational thought. The later exposure of the chicanery of individuals like the photo-expert fake, Robert Groden, in the Simpson civil trial, only added to Jack White's previous exposure. Revelations of Mark Lane's dishonest handling of Helen Markham's statements, the irrational and ridiculous claims of Zapruder film alteration, all simply were too silly for me to give serious thought. In fact the number of former conspiracy believers who have converted is constantly growing--however I don't seem to know of ANY "LHO-Guilty" devotees who have been converted to the "Conspiracy Nut" camp. There may be some--but I've never heard of even one in my thirty years of Kennedy assassination research. That, at least is my story. You left out the part about JACK WHITE BEING YOUR NEMESIS. Please explain. Jack White "your nemesis" Well Jack, Not to hurt your feelings but I have never felt you were an "expert" in anything related to the Kennedy assassination. I've found your claims of photograph alteration to be ridiculous and without serious merit, let alone devoid of logic and common sense. I don't believe ANY evidence has ever come forth to show the backyard photographs were altered in any way, and haven't seenb anything you've contributed of ANY scientific worth. Much like Robert Groden, (another infamous fake concerning his so-called expertise) I have always sought in my career to expose fakes and phonies in all walks of life whenever possible and you and Groden lead the pack. The Internet has created a new genereatin of self-annoionted 'experts" whose credentials are dubious at best. However with throngs of adoring internet fans, some pseudo-experts amass great numbers of devotees in spite of their lack of qualifications. It seems that all too often when these self-annointed experts fall into the hands of REAL experts in a respective field, their "expertise" is quickly exposed and deflated. You before the HSCA and Groden on the witness stand during the Simpson civil trial. Whew....and there you have my views. Of course I don't know ANYTHING about you personally. You may be a wonderful father, grandfather, husband, soccer coach, or gardener. I don't mean to cast aspersions on your personal attributes, but once you step into the arean of public debate and present yourself as a photograph expert then you are fair game for criticism. I do not claim to be a photographic expert therefore I am NOT fair game in such a debate. I am an American History scholar who has spent thirty years studying ALL areas of American History, focusing as a hobby on the Kennedy assassination. I have neither the time nor the interest to publish anything on the case. I am NOT an expert in the assassination. I simply read a great amount on the topic, form my own opinions, and feel free to critique others opinions as they are free to criticize mine. Believe me you have to have a set of steel balls to be the ONLY lone nut advocate to enter THIS website that is teeming with conspiracy nuts just waiting to eat you alive. But that's all right. It's still fun, isnt' it. Your pal, T. Folsom

Incidentally, I'll pick a fight any time I please. I don't NEED permission from you, mom. I'm still waiting for answers, pal. No Sir, you will not "pick a fight anytime you please" You will, however, adhear to Forum rules as regards expected behaviour or your time here will be very short. Now please post a bio, and a recent photo as an avitar and cut out the pointless name calling. Steve, Forum Moderator. Well Stevie, Why was an earlier poster not reprimanded when he referred to ME as a Cracker Jack? Huh? And a later poster called me an idiot. I assume you will stand with your hands in your pockets, Steve. Your rules seems a little different for the avowed conspiracy nuts and those of us convinced of Oswald's guilt huh? Well, what else is new. I HAVE posted a personal profile (I did this years ago, I mistakenly thought that WAS by Biography. I haven't been successful in locating the place I need to post my biography. NO WHERE was I told to post a bio and photo prior to posting questions. They never mentioned this years ago when I joined this site. Now everyone seems more concerned about those items than they do about the content of the topic being discussed. But I will gladly comply. Point me in the right direction and I will add my biography.

I am one of those converted LHO guilty advocates. I was a die-hard conspiracy believer until about 1980. I began studying the Kennedy assassintion in earnest following the publication of "November 22, 1963: You are the Jury" however at that time I was more convinced in Josiah Thompson, Mark Lane, and Edward Epstein's views than I was of David Belin's. But the more I read of the assassination and especially the more I read conspiracy-oriented books, "Rush to Judgement," "Six Seconds in Dallas," "Who Killed Kennedy," "They've Killed the President", "The Assassination Tapes," "The Second Oswald" etc... I soon found that these authors didn't really solve the case. In fact they never provided ANY answers. I saw very quickly that conspiracy believers were much better at standing on the sidelilnes and asking question sthan they were in stepping onto the field and providing answers that agreed with logic, common sense, and the known evidence. Then with the findings of the HSCA and the public discredting and embarassment of Jack White for his supposed photographic "expertise" I started to smell a rat. By 1980 I began examining the evidence with an "Oswald Guilty" frame of mind and EVERYTHING suddenly made perfect sense. Questions I had always struggled with now made perfect sense. Questions like the backyard photographs (of which there was no credible evidence of forgery), Oswald's autograph on the back of one of those photographs, Oswald taking the package of "curtain rods" to work, Oswald's unexpected trip to Ruth Paine's house on November 21st, Oswald fleeing the scene after the assassination, Oswald walking/jogging/running seven blocks to catch the very bus that would have stopped across the street from the TSBD, Oswald leaving the bus in a panic when it stalled in traffic, Oswald having the cab driver drop him off four blocks past his North Beckley boarding house, Oswald taking a gun with him after leaving the boarding house, Oswald's shooting of Tippit (which was iron-clad based on the evidence, in my mind), Oswald's attempted murder of Officer McDonald, Oswald's numerous lies while being interrogated, Oswald's failure to implicate any co-conspirators, and Oswald's lies concerning his rifle ownership. When I assumed (hoped) Oswald was innocent, NONE of these facts made any sense. Once I assumed Oswald was guilty, then EVERY single fact in the case made perfect sense. It rang true. Since my conversion EVERY SINGLE conspiracy book has rehashed old material without solving ANYTHING. Points that have been disproven for years are still brought up as if they were brand new. I cannot believe that in over forty years no one in this so-called conspiracy has ever talked. That thought alone boggles rational thought. The later exposure of the chicanery of individuals like the photo-expert fake, Robert Groden, in the Simpson civil trial, only added to Jack White's previous exposure. Revelations of Mark Lane's dishonest handling of Helen Markham's statements, the irrational and ridiculous claims of Zapruder film alteration, all simply were too silly for me to give serious thought. In fact the number of former conspiracy believers who have converted is constantly growing--however I don't seem to know of ANY "LHO-Guilty" devotees who have been converted to the "Conspiracy Nut" camp. There may be some--but I've never heard of even one in my thirty years of Kennedy assassination research. That, at least is my story.

How come I had to put up a personal biography and photo before being granted posting rights while this cracker jack doesn't have to? Bill Kelly THAT was your response? Nothing from you either, huh? That's not nothing. That's my question. Why are you allowed to come in here without posting a personal profile and bio and photo, which I had to do before I was permitted to post? In addition, you are under the mistaken impression, from the title of your thread, that there is such a thing as a "conspiracy community," a misapprehension shared by Vincent Bugliosi. Once you are straightened out about that, and who you are, then you can pick a fight. As for your questions, they should and will be answered by those responsible for answering such questions - law enforcement investigators and forensic pathogists. Bill Kelly As you can see, I've been involved with this site quite a bit longer than you have, pal. I joined this site a LONG time ago, LONG before you did. Perhaps the rules were different when I joined. Your question implies you are a victim of a conspiracy--what a surprise. Meanwhile, you still conveniently refuse to answer even one of my questions. And, YES there is a very distinct conspiracy community. VERY distinct. And you sound like a poster child of that group. You ASK questions but refuse to take the bait and ANSWER some simple questions. Incidentally, I'll pick a fight any time I please. I don't NEED permission from you, mom. I'm still waiting for answers, pal.

As I said in my original post, conspiracy nuts are well adapted at asking questions (you did) but woefully sorry at providing answers. I will not bite. My original questions stand. I will only respond in this thread to direct answers to MY questions and not get into the endlessly questions that entertain so many conspiracy nuts.

How come I had to put up a personal biography and photo before being granted posting rights while this cracker jack doesn't have to? Bill Kelly THAT was your response? Nothing from you either, huh?

Nothing offered here.

I posed the following eleven question to Bill Miller and they were ignored. I am always curious to get a general feel of exactly WHAT the conspiracy nuts out there really think happened. My general experience in studying the assassination since 1973 has been that conspiracy nuts are very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers. Here are eleven questions I would like to have a few people tackle. Then we can start discussing the evidence after the responses start to pile up. 1. Was Oswald involded in ANY way during the assassination? 2. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the upper back? 3. Where was the shot fired from that caused Kennedy's throat wound? 4. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the back? 5. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the wrist? 6. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the left thigh? 7. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the head? 8. Where did the shot originate that dented the chrome frame of the limousine? 9. How many shots were fired that day in Dealey Plaza? 10. Why don't the Dallas doctors recollections of the wounds match the Bethesda autopsy findings? 11. Where was Oswald at the time of the assassination? Let the nuts start cracking.

Apparently you attribute the same level of reliability to an interview that you do to sworn testimony. I do NOT. I will use Skinny Holland's testimony before the WC LONG before I will use a private interview with a researcher. If YOU accept them on equal ground than clearly you and I will not agree on much. And an added note. Skinny Holland said that he saw smoke come out from beneath the trees. I'm certain that you are aware that the trees were NOT along the stockade fence in 1963, the trees were further down the grassy knoll. That being the case, please tell me where this gunman ran to after "shooting" the president since he wasn't behind the stockade fence at the time. Remember that NO ONE near the stockade fence saw ANYONE escaping from that location--NO ONE. So apparently the gunman was standing ON the grassy knoll in full view of everyone there and managed to get away without being seen by one single person. Good theory.

Apparently you attribute the same level of reliability to an interview that you do to sworn testimony. I do NOT. I will use Skinny Holland's testimony before the WC LONG before I will use a private interview with a researcher. If YOU accept them on equal ground than clearly you and I will not agree on much.

Since you avoided EVERY single time I asked for evidence I have really nothing to respond to on this post. Your avoidance dance may fool some researchers, it doesn't fool me. When you provide some substance I will respond. But I WILL pose some questions about the assassination in hopes you can provide some answers. It is difficult to pin down exactly what you think happened in the assassination since, like most conspiracy nuts, you don't really have many answers just a lot of questions. But possible these questions will clear a few things up for me: 1. Was Oswald involded in ANY way during the assassination? 2. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the upper back? 3. Where was the shot fired from that caused Kennedy's throat wound? 4. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the back? 5. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the wrist? 6. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the left thigh? 7. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the head? 8. Where did the shot originate that dented the chrome frame of the limousine? 9. How many shots were fired that day in Dealey Plaza? 10. Why don't the Dallas doctors recollections of the wounds match the Bethesda autopsy findings? 11. Where was Oswald at the time of the assassination? We'll just start with these eleven and then we will see how the REAL evidence stacks up against your scenerio. Having said this you will do one of two things: 1. You will ignore most of my questions claiming they are silly and pointless (since you know the evidence won't support your version of the events) or 2. You will detail an elaborate scenerio of events that I will quickly dismantle with the real evidence in this investigation. Good luck.

Dr. Malcolm Perry examined the throat wound, up close and personal, and he told the world right away that it appeared to be an entrance wound. None of the autopsy doctors, the Clark panel, HSCA etc EVER examined the throat wound. The minimum price of admission to the JFK debate is an acknowledgement that there IS direct evidence, by a qualified professional, who was in a position to observe the throat wound very, very closely, that JFK was shot in the throat from the front. No qualified expert will ever be in a position to contradict Perry’s original statement until such time as the body itself is exhumed. This is about as weak an argument as I have ever heard. On another thread I asked if anyone had ever done an analysis of the chain of custody of JFK’s clothing from the time the nurses undressed him until the clothing was introduced into evidence. Since Mr (Dr.?) . Folsom wishes us to rely on the clothing as important evidence, perhaps he will be good enough to provide such a detailed accounting of the chain of custody. The bullet fragments were found in Washington DC, more than 1000 miles from the scene of the shooting, and only after the limo was illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the crime. Bullet fragments are seen on the X-Rays. These fragments do NOT have little arrows attached indicating the direction from whence they came. Since you live in Southern California, you might want to run that one past your neighbor, Mr. David S. Lifton, author the bestselling book BEST EVIDENCE. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,924652,00.html You might also ask Mr. Lifton if he agrees that Cyril Wecht is really is the “darling of the conspiracy theorists” or if Wecht is in fact a “sheep in wolf’s clothing” Now that is a good question. Back around 1966/7 the New York Review of books published a letter from Josiah Thompson which outlined an argument that the bullet fragments were planted. Warren Commission defenders tried to refute this argument with the opinions of dr. Vincent P. Guinn, but recent research by Randich, Grant, et al provides intriguing support for the theory that the fragments were planted in the limousine and that CE 399 was planted at Parkland hospital. My responses: "Dr. Malcolm Perry examined the throat wound, up close and personal, and he told the world right away that it appeared to be an entrance wound. None of the autopsy doctors, the Clark panel, HSCA etc EVER examined the throat wound" 1. You include only a portion of Dr. Perry's statement--the portion that supports your conspiracy theory. Dr. perry ACTUALLY clarified his initial impression of an entry wound by pointing out that it was a small wound that is more commonly associated with wounds of entrance, but he went on to say that it could have been EITHER an entrance wound OR an exit wound. Assuming that YOU are correct in your frontal entrance wound scenerio, where exactly do you think the gunman was located that fired this frontal entry wound? According to the wound on Kennedy's back and the position Kennedy was sitting in at the time that would mean that your frontal gunman would have to be located on Elm street, lying on his stomach in front of the limousine. Is THAT your contention? Clearly your frontal theory is without serious merit. The abrasion collar around the BACK wound was EXACTLY the type associated with an entrance wound. NOT ONE doctor in Dallas testified to seeing any similar abrasion collar around the throat wound. Why? because it was a wound of exit and NOT a wound of entrance. Also, the clothing is an EXCELLENT piece of solid evidence as to the direction of the wounds since the clothing MATCHES exactly the curved-in wound located on the president's back. So on MY SIDE are: a. The bullet lined up perfectly to strike COnnally exactly where it did after it hit Kennedy, we have THAT bullet. b. Kennedy's clothing showed forensic evidence of ONE wound entering the back and ONE wound exiting the throat. c. The skin around the back wound was pushed INWARD--only possible with a back entrance wound. d. The wound to the back had an abrasion collar that ALL doctors agreed was symptomatic of an entrance wound. ON your side we have the following pieces of supporting evidence: a. Incidentally, where did your front entrance bullet go? ANd please point out where your "gunman" was located. Good luck, pal. "The bullet fragments were found in Washington DC, more than 1000 miles from the scene of the shooting, and only after the limo was illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the crime." So what exactly are you implying? That someone (who) planted the bullets? How would they know that bullets wouldn't be found in Kennedy's body that would account for all the damage to him? Why plant bullets when simply destroying them would take care of any questions? How did they get the bullets to match those fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano? WHo stole Oswald's weapon, and when did they steal it? Your answer is so ridiculous it leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. From ALL of your responses you are clearly a conspiracy nut beyond the pale of rational thought. You suspect that the clothes were altered, the bullets were planted, an invisible laid on Elm street and shot Kennedy. Geez...is there ANY rational position you adhere to? "Bullet fragments are seen on the X-Rays. These fragments do NOT have little arrows attached indicating the direction from whence they came." Clearly you are in way over your head in talking about medical evidence if THIS is your response to the x-ray issue. Of course ANY doctor can determined the direction of a gunshot based on the scatter of mettalic debris left in its destructive path. ALL respected medical personal that have examined the x-rays are in agreement that there was NO damage to the left rear of the president's brain, the number of metallic fragments found there are consistent with residual fragments that would be found to the side of a point of impact, but the vast majority of the fragments were located to the right front and left FRONT of the presiden't brain. "Josiah Thompson which outlined an argument that the bullet fragments were planted. " WOW What a surprise...planted evidence. Who planted it, when, where, and how did they get ammunition fired from Oswald's rifle when there is NOT ONE SPECK of evidence that Oswald ever had his rifle stolen. None. "Since you live in Southern California, you might want to run that one past your neighbor, Mr. David S. Lifton, author the bestselling book BEST EVIDENCE." I do not consider David LIfton a serious scholar in any way. His theories are so innane and without serious merit that I would not ask him the time of day without checking another source. What do YOU think LIfton would tell me incidentally?

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. Your tone is much like a LNr troller would use by automatically assuming that all CTs most commonly make things up. Kinda in reverse of you saying the evuslion was on the "left" side of JFK's head when in fact it was always reported to be on the "right" rear side of JFK's head. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly. Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size??? I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation. Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer. I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke.Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that. Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter. Yet Earle V. Brown was a Dallas cop who was stationed on the railroad overpass that crossed the Stemmons Freeway. By his own estimation he was about 100 yards from the Triple Underpass. The following testimony can be found in WC volume 6, pp. 233-234: Mr. BALL. Did you hear the shots? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How many? Mr. BROWN. Three. Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. Well, they seemed high to me, actually; if you want, would you like me to tell you? Mr. BALL Sure, tell it in your own words. Mr. BROWN. Well, down in that river bottom there, there's a whole lot of pigeons this particular day, and they heard the shots before we did because I saw them flying up — must have been 50, 75 of them. Mr. BALL. Where was the river bottom? Mr. BROWN. You know, actually off to the — between us and the, this overpass you are talking about there's kind of a levee along there. It's really a grade of the railroad, is what it is; that's where they were and then I heard these shots and then I smelled this gun powder. Mr. BALL. You did? Mr. BROWN. It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so — at least it smelled like it to me. Mr. BALL. What direction did the sound seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas . . . Mr. BALL. School Book Depository? Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository. Gary Mack said to me today that about half on the underpass workers had mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees. I can only recommend that you first learn the witnesses statement record before becoming a critic for one side or the other. Bill Miller Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. 1. What was HIS source? Conspiracy nuts constantly use incestuous research which often never has an origin in truth or fact. When you locate the original source so I can read it myself then I will comment. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly 2. What is your source for the avulsion? It does NOT appear in ANY of the films. And besides, are you now implying that Kennedy was shot from the left front of the limousine and the bullet exited the right rear? Why don't ANY of the doctors agree with your theory? Why don't any of the photographs or x-rays agree with your theory? Why don't any of the films or photographs agree with your theory? Why? Because your theory is ridiculous. You are expecting me to know of evidence that doesn't exist in the real world. Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size??? 3. Please provide your source proving that the brain at Bethesda was "a full intact brain weighing of normal size." After I read your source I will respond. I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation 4. Clearly you are cornered here and you apparently don't do well when cornered because your answer is ridiculous. Are you implying that a rifle bullet that could destroy a human head would strike a metal frame of a windshield and only DENT it? This is so laughable I cannot even compose a coherent reply. I don't blame you for avoiding the fragments (which matched Oswald's WC ammunition incidentally) in the front of the limousine--they ARE a sticky wicket for conspiracy critics to explain away. What is your source for the smell of gunpowder? I will read the original myself.Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer. 5. Clearly you haven't read much history and certainly haven't WRITTEN ANY history to have this bass-ackwards method of proving a point. When a person makes a bizarre claim (you) it is up to THAT person to provide their own proof. Scholars don't write a book and then in the endnote section include the line "If you don't believe what I've said then YOU go out and do the research." This is clearly reflective of an untrained method of research you employ. If YOU make the claim...then YOU provide the proof. I asked for your sources for seeing smoke from the triple bridge underpass. You dodged the issue with this response, "I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke." You are now referring to Mark Lane as your source for interviews? MARK LANE? No educated person in the assassination community would EVER refer to Mark Lane as a source for an interview. He has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence. Incidentally, you didn't even provide ONE name of ONE person who claimed they saw smoke. Why? NO one did at the time. And S.M. Holland's later statement when he DID mention smoke is riddled with so many inconsistencies that it is clear he didn't know WHAT in the world he just witnessed. 6. You quoted Mrs. Earl Cabell as a strong witness that shots originated from the front, but her testimony supports no such thing. All she said was that she smelled gunsmoke. What would you expect witnesses to smell after three shots had been fired from a high powered rifle? Remember that the winds were swirling around Dealey Plaza that afternoon, so simply smelling smoke lends support to NO location of shots. Nice try though. 7. Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter. The first Ms. McKinnon mentioned smoke was in her 1983 San Diego newspaper article. She was never called as a witness before the WC nor the HSCA. She has never given a swonr statement and she managed to keep her mouth shut for twenty years. I don't believe her "story" one bit. 8. What in the world would you include Officer Brown's testimony for? He supports MY position that the shots originated "up high" and from the "Texas School Depository Building." I'm still laughing that you included HIs testimony to lend support for your ridiculous theory of a front gunman. 9. Oh Gary Mack told you huh? Please give me the names he told you about and I will check their testimony on my own. If you think I am so inexperienced in assassination research to take your word for it when Gary Mack "told you" you have me greatly underestimated. When it comes to historical evidence and proof, it appears you are in way over your head in this debate. You haven't proven one single thing.

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. Your tone is much like a LNr troller would use by automatically assuming that all CTs most commonly make things up. Kinda in reverse of you saying the evuslion was on the "left" side of JFK's head when in fact it was always reported to be on the "right" rear side of JFK's head. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly. Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size??? I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation. Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer. I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke.Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that. Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter. Yet Earle V. Brown was a Dallas cop who was stationed on the railroad overpass that crossed the Stemmons Freeway. By his own estimation he was about 100 yards from the Triple Underpass. The following testimony can be found in WC volume 6, pp. 233-234: Mr. BALL. Did you hear the shots? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How many? Mr. BROWN. Three. Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. Well, they seemed high to me, actually; if you want, would you like me to tell you? Mr. BALL Sure, tell it in your own words. Mr. BROWN. Well, down in that river bottom there, there's a whole lot of pigeons this particular day, and they heard the shots before we did because I saw them flying up — must have been 50, 75 of them. Mr. BALL. Where was the river bottom? Mr. BROWN. You know, actually off to the — between us and the, this overpass you are talking about there's kind of a levee along there. It's really a grade of the railroad, is what it is; that's where they were and then I heard these shots and then I smelled this gun powder. Mr. BALL. You did? Mr. BROWN. It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so — at least it smelled like it to me. Mr. BALL. What direction did the sound seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas . . . Mr. BALL. School Book Depository? Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository. Gary Mack said to me today that about half on the underpass workers had mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees. I can only recommend that you first learn the witnesses statement record before becoming a critic for one side or the other. Bill Miller

You didn't mention that despite the HSCA report saying that no one saw the large avulsed wound on the back of the President's head - Tannenbaum said that the actual sign off list of those who saw the wound showed just the opposite. So one must ask why would someone want to avoid that large avulsed wound so badly?? The Zapruder and Nix film shows the avuslion to the back of JFK's head ... Could it be that showing the avulsion existed would be detrimental to the bullet traveling from back to front? What caused the smell of gunpowder to get over by the fence and into the street? What caused the smoke to come through the trees at the precise moment shots were heard from that location? All I am asking for are logical explanations rather than factless propaganda. Bill 1. Give me your source for the "sign off list". I will check it myself. If you don't provide the original source I will assume it is made up (as is commonly done among conspiracy lovers.) Please remember that ALL autopsy doctors were flown to the National Archives for the 1988 NOVA special on the Kennedy assassination and they were shown the original autopsy photos and they ALL agreed that the massive defect to the RIGHT-FRONT of the president's head was EXACTLY what they remembered from that night. 2. The Zapruder and Nix films show NO SUCH avulsion to the left rear of the president's head--that is utter nonsense. The price to admission to serious debate on the Kennedy assassination should be common sense--NOT nonsense. 3. Even assuming your unfounded claims of a frontal shot were true, please explain why no damage was seen to the President's brain on the left rear side. Even Cyril Wecht admits there was NO damage to the left rear of the president's brain and NO fragments are seen there in the x-rays. 4. Please explain how a shot from the front would result in bullet fragments being found on the FRONT floor of the limousine. You conveniently skipped that point in your response. 5. What is your source for the smell of gunpowder? I will read the original myself. 6. Remember that your source for the puff of smoke (S.M. Holland) mentioned NO SUCH smoke in his first couple of statements. And NO OTHER employees from the triple overpass bridge claimed to have seen smoke. But the claims of smoke are moot anyway, because there is no evidence that anyone was shooting from the front. Once we have eliminated any credible evidence of a frontal shot (which I have) then unanswered questions like smoke or gunpowder smells must, by default, have another explanation. Therefore your claims of hidden gunmen in photographs are all moot. There is NO evidence of any frontal shot. Your claims are pointless and ungrounded in ANY facts.

In post #239, you started out saying that there was no evidence of a shot being fired from the right front. In your next response you are more defined by saying that no wounds to JFK were caused from a shot from the right front. In both replies you failed to offer anything remotely detailed in support of your opinion. You also failed to address the scenario I offered up in my previous response to you. If you are serious about your position, then I ask that you take my questions serious enough to answer them if you can. Bill Well let's provide some evidence for you. 1. ALL doctors involved in the autopsy of President Kennedy agreed that there was NO EVIDENCE of any frontal entry wounds based on the following: a. Kennedy's clothing revealed INWARD fibers on the back and OUTWARD fibers on the tie and shirt on the front. b. The back wound revealed an abrasion collar that was consistent with an entrance wound and NOT consistent with any exit wound. 2. The Clark Comission agreed in its medical findings--NO evidence of rear exit wounds and no evidence of frontal entrance wounds. 3. The HSCA agreed. No evidence of any wounds entering the president from any location other than the right rear. 4. The head wound revealed inward beveling on the back and NO inward beveling on the front, which is 100% consistent with REAR entrance wounds and 100% inconsistent with exit wounds. 5. The bullet fragments were found IN FRONT of Kennedy's head on the front floor of the Limousine--again completely 100% INCONSISTENT with a shot from the right front. 6. NO fragments were found on the road to the left rear of Kennedy which is where one would expect to find the bullet fragments if a shooter was firing from the right front location 7. NO bullet fragments or damage was seen in the x-rays of Kennedy's brain which one WOULD expect to see if a shot had entered the right frontal lobe and exited the left rear of the head. 8. The Zapruder film does NOT reveal ANY exit wound to the left rear of the President's head. 9. The Nix film agrees with no evidence of left-side exit wound. 10. The Muchmore film also agrees. 11. The Moorman photograph also agrees. There. Is that enough evidence. Those points being made, your imagined gunman behind the stockade fence is now moot. There is NO evidence that anyone was firing from that location, therefore giving serious consideration to your boundless claim is unnecessary.