Jump to content
The Education Forum

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Recommended Posts

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #13

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


source: alt.conspiracy.jfk


13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce (two wound

ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed themselves as being very

strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets,

principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher

could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion. Dr.

Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a conclusion until he has had

the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and bone with the actual rifle."

"Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964, written by Melvin Eisenberg

about a conference held on April 21, 1964.

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce) fired when he

refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC refused to allow

him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in the WCR.)

In 'picking & choosing' the evidence they wished to present, the Warren

Commission acted solely in the role of prosecutor rather than as an impartial

fact finding body.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...