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 #15

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


Seems that the weekend wasn't kind to the trolls... FBI Intimidation seems to

work on even those who'd like to answer why there was FBI Intimidation in this

case... everyone ran from answering it. But, in the interests of getting

through all these questions, its a new day, here's a new question:

15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on

the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the

autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running

away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was

twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest

fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do:


> I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough,

> wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what

> Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found.

John McAdams:

We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's

apparently just a sliver.


Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"?

Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually round object, the

best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to frame Oswald.


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...