Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

[David G. Healy]

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

Edited April 20, 2008 by David G. Healy