David G. Healy Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #44 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'. *below question 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 files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr. George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion. A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it? It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts. In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it "can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence." "can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"??? Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take Loquvam's revealing statement out. Why does the truth require lies to support it? And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports? eof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questionsQuestion #44 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'. *below question 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 files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr. George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion. A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it? It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts. In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it "can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence." "can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"??? Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take Loquvam's revealing statement out. Why does the truth require lies to support it? And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports? eof Why does the truth require lies to support it? Simply due to the fact that "truth" is not necessarily "fact"! TRUTH is, after all, what we actually believe, base on our often limited understanding of the facts. THE WORLD IS FLAT-----------------------------------------------------------Was once a truth! THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE:----------------------------Was once a truth! So, in that regards, one just may want to refresh their memory in regards to what LBJ and JBC's opinions of "truth" were. Which by the way was somewhat like: If we can convince them to believe it, then it becomes the "truth". Lastly (on the truth issue that is), Many persons "truthfully" believe that they have been kidnapped by an UFO. And, as demonstrated through hyptnosis, etc; many actually believe that what they are saying is truthful. When one raises their right hand on the witness stand, they swear to "Tell the Truth". Therefore, as they believe; accept; and understand the fact, they tell the "Truth", which may not necessarily be the fact. No doubt, there remain many who are of the misguided conceptual "Truth" that JFK's body was kidnapped and the wounds altered. NOT FACT! However, if they believe, then it is "truth" to them. NOW! In regards to the "Correct Answer" to your posed question! At the time of the quoted statement, the HSCA Medical Panel was in discussion as regards how the bullet entrance wound which Humes/Boswell/Finke found, located at the rear of the head of JFK, which was located at the lower edge of the hairline, had "tunnelled" UPWARDS through the soft tissues at the base of the neck and thereafter struck JFK in EOP region of the skull. Discussions had demonstrated that the SCALP entry was LOWER in position on the back of the head than was the skull entry. With that in mind, it does not even take a "smart" person to look at the Z-film in the Z312 location and cleary observe the impossibility for a shot fired on an approximate 15-degree/to 18-degree downward angle, to have struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline and for the bullet to immediately turn upwards and tunnel through the soft tissue of the neck to ultimately strike the skull in a location which was higher than the scalp entry. Which by the way, should clearly demonstrate that the EOP wound which Humes/Boswell/Fink clearly observed (and photographed) physically could not have been the impact to the head as observed in Z312. Some things just happen to be beyond the realm of the physical sciences. A 2,000 (+) fps 6.5mm bullet suddenly turning upwards upon impact point entry with nothing more than the scalp and soft tissue of the neck happens to be one of them. So, hope that answers your question as to the "WHY?" the less in the record about the "upwards tunnelling" wound of entry at the rear of the head, the better, as someone just may actually read and understand this. Tom P.S. And the answer is, photographs of the interior of the skull was taken after brain removal and those fragments at the rear/base of the skull which contained the bullet entrance wound, had been completely re-assembled in place. Thereafter, a photo was taken from the interior side, which showed the clearly demonstrated wound of entry in the EOP region. Had this photo been allowed to remain in the public record, virtually any pathologist and/or psuedo-pathologist would have been able to clearly demonstrate the EOP wound of entry and thereafter fully contradict the WC's cartoon drawing as well as the later HSCA "cowlick" entry as being the wound of entry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence. Tom ------------------------------------ THERE IS NO MAGIC! However, Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! Tom ------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now