T. Folsom

You folks are all deluded. I still am speechless. The wounds to Kennedy's head did not originate from the right front.

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

ALL medical panels that have examined the forensic evidence (Warren Commission, Autopsy doctors, Clark Panel, HSCA team) ALL agreed that ALL wounds to the president originated from behind. The back wound revealed that the fibers on Kennedy's clothing was pushed INWARD on the back and the shirt and tie showed fibers pushed OUTWARD on the front. In addition the wound to the president's back was consistent with an ENTRANCE wound with the abrasion collar.

The head wound showed INWARD beveling on the back of the president's head- typical of an ENTRANCE wound. There was NO BEVELING surrounding the wound to the RIGHT-FRONT of the president's head. That is why even the darling of the conspiracy community, Cyril Wecht, was forced to maintain his professional reliability and admit that ALL available evidence pointed to NO entrance wounds coming from the front.

Additionally, if a shooter DID fire from the front and strike Kennedy (even though NO EVIDENCE supports this irrational suspicision,) let's just assume there were a shot from the front. Why then were all the bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limousine? Why weren't the fragments found on the road to the left rear?

This being said, your suspicions of a shooter located to the right front are moot and without ANY need for serious response.

Check this new article:

http://www.rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

Well, well, well my old nemesis Jack White.

I'm curious, Jack. Is there ANY bizarre conspiracy theory that you DON'T believe?

Duncan's outline shows very little shrinkage (if any).

Bill

Garbage..I'll post the true comparison again and let the forum decide if there is any shrinkage or not.

Duncan

You folks are all deluded. I still am speechless. The wounds to Kennedy's head did not originate from the right front. The Zapruder film does not show ANY evidence of a left read exit wound, the president's head does not reveal any evidence of a left read exit wound, if (for arguments sake) there WAS a right-front gunman then we know (based on the evidence) that they missed Kennedy, they also missed Connally, they also missed Mrs. Kennedy, they missed Mrs. Conally, they missed the vehicle, they missed everyone on the other side of Elm street.

Sounds like quite the gunman you guys have invented. Remember that even your darling Cyril Wecht admitted that there is NO EVIDENCE of any shots striking the president from the right front.

You guys are living in a bizarre dream world of unreality.

I am stunned at the level of lunacy on this site. Are you people for real or is this an elaborate joke? Do some of you seriously think a gunman fired at the president's motorcade from the right front? I'm speechless. Is there NOTHING that you people won't believe? There is not one scrap of hard evidence, not one speck that points to a right front gunman. NOTHING!!!

Let me be the first to point out---the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

ALL wounds to Kennedy originated from the right rear. There is no evidence of any front entrance wounds. I am literally left dumbfounded that there are adults, who can read books and drive cars and go on dates with girls who still believe in all of this conspiracy hogwash.

I fear the future of critical, logical thought in the world is doomed.

I want to thank Dank for being a man of his word and putting me on ignore.

Being open minded and not making a total fool out oneself are two different things. There is no way Thompson could write a book and claim the man in the doorway was Oswald, he would laughed out of the research community. You guys tried that once and when it didn't hold water you quickly discarded it. But no where does Thompson imply that Oswald was guilty. That is exactly the point I was making. He doesn't believe that the shots could have been fired in the time allowed, (which in 1967 was inccorectly thought to be 5.6 seconds--today we know it was closer to 8.3) The only real voice Thompson has now is with his ongoing feud with Jimmy Fitzer, Jack White and the lunatics that claim the Zapruder film was tampered with. Thompson is very selective in wghat he writes about Oswald. For instance, Thompson knows that the New York period of Oswald's life reveals some very telling details about his personality and anti-social behavior, hence he skips that part of the Oswald story entirely. Thompson also conviently skips all reference to Dr. Renatus Hartogs, who talked with Oswald extensivey when Lee was a child. No mention of him either in Thompson's book. Thompson even shots himself in the foot when he admits that over 80% of all witnesses who expressed an opinion as to the number of shots said they heard three. And only 2% said they came from more than one location--a key element to Thompson's unprovable theory of shooters on top of the Records Building and the TSBD and behind the grassy knoll. Of course not a single witness that day said they heard shots come from three different locations--but why let that stand in the way of a good theory? Thompson is very selective in which witnesses he refers to also. Concerning the location of the head wound, only tow doctors of those that treated the President in Dallas still claim they saw a wound in the rear of the Presiden't head. Thompson only quotes from one of those two, Robert McClelland, he ignores the testimony of the doctors who don't agree with his theory. Gerald Posner on the other hand refers to the statements of ALL of the doctors and then evaluates their relative merit and validity in light of other evidence.

I agree, the photographs are not the best way to determine the location and extent of the injuries. It is the autopsy doctors to whom we refer for that information. And from that we learn that Kennedy was shot once from behind in the upper back five inches below the boney proturberance next to the right ear. And once in the back of the head, exiting the front. Thank you.

Yes I have read the book, have you. You dodged my question, you did not specific mention any examples. Please mention them with page number so we can both enjoy them. I don't think Thompson is unbiased at all. And if you think a conspiracy writer or a lone nut writer is unbiased then you don't read much. I will await your examples.

Healey: False evidence everywhere

Folsom: An excellent point. Please list for me...oh let's say...ten pieces of false evidence and we will discuss them. Please be specific.

I can find virtually nothing about Mee except the same source you found your information from. However it strikes me as odd that of all the people that have studied the Zapruder film only ONE guy with photographic esperience comes to White's defense. I would like to know what recognized organizations Mee is a member of. I noticed he does not have a PhD. Not that means he is right or wrong, but it does mean his training is recognized by others. Working for Kodak doesn't exactly make someone an expert in photographic analysis. And, by the way, the interview I read with Mee only talked about the backyard photographs, they didn't mention the Zapruder film alteration issue at all. So I concede that point, I guess here is some guy somewhere named Brian Mee who agrees with Jack White. I will expect to see the evening news covering this breakthrough any day now and the case will soon be solved.

Lee--I discount the audible number of shots as having any bearing

T. F. --Well of course you do. Just like most conspiracy theorists you HAVE to ignore the evidence if you are going to champion your ridiculous theories. If you went by the evidence your theories would be laughed out of the room.

Lee--The medical evidence is unsupportable, and cannot be used for anything other than to prove that a cover-up took place. It is inconsistent, shows signs of tampering, alteration, destruction of evidence, etc. All useless in supporting your claims.

T.F.--So you don't accept the medical evidence either? You are a joke. Can you imagine what a jury would think if YOU were a lawyer defending a client and you told them,

"Ahem...ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. Earwitnesses will tell you that they heard evidence that points to my witness, but I want you to ignore that evidence please. Also doctors will testify that the bodies of the victims show a high probability that my client was also guilty. But if you would please, ignore that evidence as well. It can't be trusted."

You had better be talking loudly in that courtroom because the laughter from the jury and gallery would probably drown out you innane request for the jury to ignore all the evidence and simply believe your "theory." And remember your "theory" has no hard evidence to support it at all.

Lee--Not clear by what you mean when you say 'clothing.' If you are referring to the nick in Kennedy's tie made by the scalpel, this is again, a moot point. The throat shot came from the front. The bullet did not exit.

T. F.--Geez. Have you read ANYTHING on the Kennedy assassination? Are you really telling me that you are unaware that Kennedy's clothing, both shirt and jacket revealed the fibers in the back were pushed inward and the fibers on the front were pushed outward? Wait...let me guess...you want the jury to ignore that evidence as well since it doesn't agree with your moronic theory of a frontal shot. Please explain Kennedy's clothing fibers pushed inward on the back and outward on the front. How do you rationalize that evidence with your faulty theory of a front entrance and no exit wound? Good luck.

Concerning Booth. You're right he was a conspirator. And since there was a real conspiracy it was discovered within a few weeks following the assassination of Lincoln. Real conspiracies get discovered. The fact that after 40 years NOTHING has been proven in a Kennedy conspiracy only strengthens the Booth reference. If there was a conspiracy or a suspect they would have been discovered by now. No suspect...no conspiracy. Sorry.

Dank: I did not say that MOST of the witnesses heard more than three shots.

T. Folsom: Oh really? Well what did you mean when you said: "I noticed that you accused Lee of ignoring the eyewitnesses, that most of them heard 3 shots (which is not true by the way..."

I stated that the majority of the earwitnesses heard three shots, you said it was not true. Then you turned around and denied saying that MOST of the witnesses heard more than three shots. Maybe I am confused. Did you mean that most of the witnesses heard TWO shots? You know as well as I do that the majority of witnesses who claimed to know how many shots were fired said three shots. There is no point juggling the testimonies to come up with a different spin. If you are going to argue for more than three shots you have to concede that the MAJORITY of the ear witnesses don't agree with your theory.

Bowers died mysteriously? Oh geez. Here comes Penn Jones again. Give that tired tactic a rest. There is absolutely no proof that when Bowers drove into the concrete abutment it was anything but an accident. Researcher David Perry wrote a very detailed discussion of Bowers in the "Third Decade" and determined his death was an accident. If you have EVIDENCE (not innuendo) then please put up or shut up.

By the way, I know you are far too paranoid to put me on ignore, it will eat away at you too much to see what I'm saying. Incidently I haven't used twisted tactics at all. I simply don't buy conspiracy nonsense, so to combat that troublesome fly in the ointment you label me a disinformationist, a deceiver, and a twisted tactician. You just don't like the fact that you and the conspiracy press haven't duped me like you have so many others.

I would like to say I'll miss our discussions but you really haven't offered anything to discuss, so I can't honestly say there is anything to miss. Next time I'm in the Netherlands I'll look you up. I'm sure being open and free with information you have your name and address in the phone book. In fact why don't you give them to me now and I will drop you a line with MY return address.

Ta ta.

Unbiased, then please point out the arguments Thompson conceded are weaknesses for the conspiracy side and strengths for the lone assassin side. If his book is unbiased as you claim he should present both sides shouldn't he?

Again you attempt to bait me into following YOUR rules. Nice try, but give it a rest. My private life is...well...my private life.

What is your source for making the claim that most witnesses heard more than three shots?

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the earwitness support for multiple gunmen firing from different locations is minimal. About 2% to be exact. While many witnessed did mistakenly think they heard four shots, virtually NONE said that shots came from two different locations. Doesn't this trouble you a bit?

Also the medical evidence does not support the two direction theory either, nor do the clothes of either victim.

So the witnesses don't agree, the medical facts don't agree, and the clothing doesn't agree. Quite a theory.

RE: I vividly recall, over 40 years later, exactly what I was doing in Gainesville, Florida when I heard about JFK being shot.

TF: How do you know you "vividly recall"? It very well may turn out that if you retold the story of what you were doing, where you were standing, who you were with, etc... and then suddenly, someone with a film of that day came forth and showed you, you may find that your memory was not nearly as "vivid" as you thought. You are defending an indefensible position--you claim that YOUR memory would not be wrong, but of course there is NO way to test your claim of a crystal clear memory. That's is why you make such a great conspiracy nut--you make claims that can't be tested.

RE: Who knows? Perhaps it had something to do with a conspiracy, i.e. perhaps he was told or requested to do it. Ever heard of disinformation?

TF: Typical conspiracy nonsense. No proof, no evidence, no factual basis for this nagging suspicion. Please provide the evidence that Louis Witt was a part of a conspiracy. I won't hold my breath--there is none.

By the way RE, I have to admit, "Folsom Prism Blues" WAS pretty funny. I'm still chuckling at that. Nice work.

The death of Harold Weisberg is only "convient" if you are reading lies, deception, mistrust, and duplicity into every act, every word, every investigation. Ahhh...the conspiracy mind...how weird it works.

You are a scream. Suppose my name isn't T. Folsom?...oooohhhhh....what then....oh no!!!.....notify the authorities we have someone using the site that won't tell us his real name.....sound the alarm!.....nobody say anything to him....shun him.....he can't be trusted.....he is a disinformationist! Don't try to bait me into giving you personal information. You may be considered a master baiter by others but I'm not as easily manipulated as conspiracy lovers. The only reason you would want to know all about any individual is so that you can attack the messenger rather than the message. If you are more concerned with the MESSAGE rather than the MESSENGER then it won't make any difference if my name is James Files, James Sutton, or T. Folsom.

Geez. Grow up.

Is this all that goes on at this site, investigation of everyone who contributes?

Let me pose a couple of real questions of real substance and see what you have to say.

If Kennedy was struck from the front, then why does the medical evidence only support REAR shots? Why was Kennedy's clothing found to have fibers pushed inward at the back and outward at the front? How does one reconcile frontal shots with this troubling evidence which only supports rear entry wounds?

Of course I've conducted research on the Internet, but seldom do I research the background of each individual who started the websites I visit. Apparantly I am not paranoid enough as yet. For instance, I've been to the website you're always advertising on this site and never once did I know that YOU were the person behind it. It wasn't until your third post I returned to your website and realized it was yours. Since the original reference to John McAdams I have gone to his site and will admit that I've been there several times to do research but I never had any idea John McAdams was behind it. Now knowing that he the site's creator I still have no idea anything about him. Obviously he is convinced of Oswald's guilt Not being a believer that conspiracies are controlling my world I don't really look deeply into the personal backgrounds of every website creator.

I forgot to add. I have no idea who John McAdams is, but I will find out and then try to understand why you would think I am one of his "cronies." I own nearly 120 books on the Kennedy assassination and he didn't write any book I own. However, from your paranoia I can safely assume that he is also convinced of Oswald's guilt, therefore ANYONE who has reached the same conclusion MUST be influenced by John McAdams, otherwise they could not have EVER reached an intellectual conclusion on their own. Is that your position? Could it be that I reached my opinion of Oswald's guilt after observing you conspiracy nuts chasing each other's tails for forty years, chasing after every hare-brained theory to come down the pike? Could it be that I reached my conclusion of Oswald's guilt after watching so called conspiracy "researchers" look for bullets that have never turned up, seek fingerprints that have never been produced, study photographs with magnifying glasses and microscopes for hidden gunmen that never appear, invent imaginary meetings between Oswald, and Ruby, Tippit, and who knows who, that never took place? Could it be that I learned that Oswald was guilty after seeing the conspiracy nuts waste forty years and not produce a single suspect besides Oswald that fits with the available evidence? If the conspiracy "research" community had produced even a single speck of evidence wouldn't NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, BBC, or any news organization jump at the chance to be the first to reveal this earth-shattering news? Oh wait, let me guess...the conspirators are in control of ALL news outlets so they don't dare reveal the conspiracy news. Is that it? Whoever John McAdams is, rest assured he has played no role in my understanding of the Kennedy assassination. It is the failure of the conspiracy "researchers" that has convinced me more than anything else that Oswald acted alone. I have read garbage by Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Henry Hurt, Anthony Summers, Jimmy Fetzer, Robert Groden, Harold Livinstone, Dick Russell, Harold Weisberg (with whom I spent an afternoon in 1991 at his home in Maryland looking through many of his voluminous files) Jack White, Cyril Wecht, Edward Epstein, Walt Brown, and others and still haven't seen a single one of them answer all the evidence in the case. Now I have to go, I need to see who the famous John McAdams is and find out why conspiracy nuts fear I am one of his "cronies."

Let me guess, I am a disinformationists? I am a history teacher and have been one for 19 years. I have a Master's Degree in American History and have completed over 30 semester units in addition to my Master's Degree studies. I write on this forum at a rapid pace, not as I would in a formal historical treatise. Lee has NOT answered my questions, but I have answered his. If I cannot participate in this forum because my name does not come up when "T. Folsom" and "History" are entered into Google, please let me know right now before I waste anymore time answering questions or posing difficult issues. I did not know that a background check was required to participate in this forum. If it is I will graciously bow out and move on to greener pastures, if on the other hand, it is my questions or answers that really matter then I will gladly stay on. I seem to be runing the conspiracy party here.

As I stated in an earlier post...my private life is...well...my private life. I have never met such a paranoid group of individuals. What difference could my first name make to this forum? I will continue to go by my first initial and my last name(T. Folsom) until the same individuals behind the assassination of Kennedy also shoot me with invisible bullets, alter my x-rays, change by autopsy photographs, digitally enhance my family photographs, and surgically alter my mortal remains. Until then, everyone please relax, uncircle the wagons, climb out from under the bed, and let's move onward. T. Folsom is me and I am T. Folsom. Geeeez. Now, as I said, who are these "experts" that have agreed with that nut Jack White? THAT is the issue at hand.

There is nothing more humorous to me than seeing conspiracy nuts like you fuming, flustered, and panicking when they vainly attempt to struggle with issues that are not germane to the discussion at hand. You guys are all alike. Well, if you are going to ignore my questions and points raised then I will simply have to discuss the assassination with someone less paranoid. Thanks for the insightful comments and keen logical discussion, you've impressed me greatly. Incidently, what difference would it make to you what my name is really (assuming it's not T. Folsom, as you fear)? By the way, I have printed all of our discussion back and forth to use in my class when I discuss how all-consuming the conspiracy mindset is. I believe it eats away at logical, coherent behavior, and reduces a person (like you) to a nervous, shadow chasing, whisper-hearing, reactionary. You are a great example of how conspiracy thinking distorts the world around you. My students will get a kick out of you. Finally, I have someone besides Jack White and Robert Groden to discuss. By the way, how many hours have you been frantically searching on the Internet for clues as to my "real" identity? I would roll on the floor laughing looking over your shoulder as you race from site to site to find clues. This is another conspiracy for you to solve isn't it? You should send me a thank you note for giving you another challenge.

T. Folson (?)

But we are coming at this from different angles. You assume that Witt's memory of the sequence of events fifteen years earlier is pristine and that since his testimony doesn't jibe with the photographic evidence it must be someone else holding the umbrella that day.

I, on the other hand am maintaining that it is much logical and much more probable that Witt simply forgot the events that occurred that day. He said in his testimony that he had not told the story to anyone since the day of the events. I find it much more realistically believable that he was simply mistaken at what happened and when it happened, than to believe that Witt is some strange mystery man who comes forth in 1978 to "fool" the Committee (for some reason you have never clarified.) He wasn't paid for his testimony. He hasn't written a book on the events of that day. He hasn't become a professioinal witness receiving large sums of money to tell whatever story the inteviewer wants to hear like Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman, or Beverlyt Oliver. What on earth would be his motive in coming forth and giving false information? He certainly want' seeking fame. You would not find one person in 900,000 across the nation that recognizes the name Louie Witt. This is certainly a dead-end road to be traveling down, in my opinion. This needs to be filed with about two-hundred other failed attempts to formulate a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.

RE: compare what he says he was doing when the shots were fired and what the UM is seen doing on film and in photos.

T. Folsom: All I can assume you are referring to is that he seemed to recall that he was still walking towards the Presidential motorcade when the shots were first fired, and the Zapruder film shows him stationary at the time of the first shot. I cannot imagine what else you are referring to as being so damning in his testimony. Of course he refers to the concrete curb as a retaining wall, my dad would call them the same thing. If you have hitched your conspiracy beliefs on his description of the curb as a "retainint wall" then you really are firing blanks. So what if he was mistaken about standing still or walking towards the President at the time of the shots? Good night, he was talking about events that occurred fifteen years earlier. The guy sitting on the curb next to the black gentleman sure looks like the same face shape of Louis Witt doesn't it? But I'm still not even sure what you are struggling to prove by thie Umbrella Man nonsense. Maybe I havenot read enough conspiracy lunacy to understand. Please explain.

maynardsthirdeye: Two different photographic experts have watched some of Jack White's videos and they said that while some of his arguments are invalid or doubtful, the majority are valid.

Folsom: What are their names and what are their credentials? Then we will discuss their agreement.