Alterationists vs Non-Alternationists?

[Mike Rago]

"The

chemical and the delivery system (dart)

are both soluble within the body and leave no discernible trace."

The above is what you said. The dart and chemical leave no discernible trace. This implies there is no discernible wound track and surely not a 6mm hole.

Where did you get this quote?

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Greg Burnham]

"The

chemical and the delivery system (dart)

are both soluble within the body and leave no discernible trace."

The above is what you said. The dart and chemical leave no discernible trace. This implies there is no discernible wound track and surely not a 6mm hole.

Where did you get this quote?

I wrote it myself, Mike. Did you read the testimony from the Church Committee on the previous page? The Director of the CIA, William Colby, and the developer

of the weapon system, Charles Senseny, from the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick, testified to the same information of which I wrote except in detail.

Also, Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations, spoke to me in great detail about it.

[Mike Rago]

Are you going to tell us that it would leave a 6mm hole?

[Greg Burnham]

Are you going to tell us that it would leave a 6mm hole?

I don't know exactly how large a hole it would leave. But, there would be an entrance wound present for sure. Moreover, remember that the alleged original purpose of this

weapon system was to render guard dogs instantly immobile -- 46-40 works extremely fast -- paralyzing to the point of preempting even a bark within a couple seconds. Dogs,

of course, have fur. A small wound of entrance would not be seen.

So, in a Special Op where our forces are violating international law by penetrating another sovereign state's facilities it is imperative that they not only escape undetected, but

there be absolutely no residual presence. If the dogs appear to be completely undamaged and alert the next day, yet sounded no alarm, it is nearly impossible for the host

nation to prove their perimeter was compromised even though they were demonstrably the victims of sabotage.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Mike Rago]

Yes and that is why it would not leave a 6mm hole.

Dart guns are in use today. Zoo's use them all the time to put animals to sleep from a distance. When the animal is knocked out they pull the dart out. I suppose that is how special ops might have used this weapon on a dog.

Killing the president of the united states is a high risk operation. They did not use a weapon designed for a dog.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Greg Burnham]

Yes and that is why it would not leave a 6mm hole.

Dart guns are in use today. Zoo's use them all the time to put animals to sleep from a distance. When the animal is knocked out they pull the dart out. I suppose that is how special ops might have used this weapon on a dog.

Killing the president of the united states is a high risk operation. They did not use a weapon designed for a dog.

Mike,

This weapon system is not even remotely similar to tranquilizer darts used by animal handlers in zoos. Have you ever seen

an animal control officer or a zoo employee use a "dart gun" that was a modified Colt .45? Have you ever seen an animal

in the zoo get shot with a dart and remain wide awake, yet be COMPLETELY PARALYZED within 1.5 to 2 seconds? If you

had read the testimony you would know that the CIA began testing and developing it for use on human targets.

[Mike Rago]

The way the CIA gets weapons like this is they give a contract to a defense contractor who develop the technology. Then some CIA guy retires and starts a company to develop a version for commercial use.

It does not matter, a dart gun was not used.

Tranquilzer handguns and darts...

http://dailygunpictures.blogspot.com/2009/02/tranquilizer-handgun-and-darts.html

[David Josephs]

Kudos to you Greg for having the patience to deal with Mike here....

I have yet to figure out what he is trying to do, beyond disrupting each thread....

Killing the POTUS is only "high risk" if you're a lone nut with a bad, old weapon and no escape route....

or have seen the actual killers and want to tell someone...

and Kudos as well for a well thought out scenario that includes the use of these exotic weapons...

There HAD to be a reason the killing did not take place at the corner of Elm/Houston... where shooters in the buildings would have the best shots...

the kill shots were to fired from the front and from further down the street...

the motocycles were ORDERED to hang back, behind the limo...

the shot, as told by Kinney and others... hit JFK on the right side of his head...

Humes et al wants us to believe the shot hit below the large wound, from the back....

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull.

Mr. BALL - That you picked up off the street?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.

Mr. BALL - What part of the street did you pick this up?

Mr. WEITZMAN - As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the----

Mr. BALL - The left-hand side facing----

Mr. WEITZMAN - That would be the south side of the street.

Mr. BALL - It was on the south side of the street. Was it in the street?

Mr. WEITZMAN - It was in the street itself.

Mr. BALL - On the pavement?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Anywhere near the curb?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Approximately, oh, I would say 8 to 12 inches from the curb, something like that.

Mr. BALL - Off the record.

(Off record discussion.)

Is it possible for a chunk of skull to fly SOUTH EAST when the shot was supposedly from the NORTH EAST

Cheers

DJ

[Mike Rago]

You still have not answered any of the questions I asked you Mr. Joesphs.

Killing the POTUS is high risk no matter who does it. That is why there has got to be a very big reward.

Greg is not afraid to engage in discussion, unlike yourself.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Greg Burnham]

Mr. Rago is demonstrating his penchant for minimizing that to which he either lacks the intellectual capacity to understand or the courage to accept.

That is not to say that I necessarily subscribe to the supposition that this weapon system was definitely employed in Dallas. I do not. However, merely

acknowledging the fact that there is sufficient supporting evidence to entertain the possibility does seem warranted.

But not for Mr. Rago who authoritatively pronounced his papal ruling on this subject, as well as many others, from on high: as if he is speaking from first

hand knowledge. Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. His lack of understanding permeates nearly every one of the many topics he has started on

this forum. His lack of a basic grasp of the evidence is gargantuan. Mind you, this alone is nothing about which he should feel ashamed. However, his far-

reaching arrogance is. It is embarrassing to observe.

Mr. Rago behaves as if he knows for certain “what did or did not” happen. He utters pronouncements of dismissal to render as trivial any areas of study in

which he has never even before been engaged! Yet, it has taken seasoned researchers sometimes more than a decade to reach conclusions about these

subjects. Many are still undecided because there exists conflicting evidence, which still has yet to “settle” sufficiently to render absolute judgments. But, not

for Mike Rago: he is certain after only a few weeks—sometimes after a few minutes—of research.

Perhaps other seasoned researchers will be more patient with him, but I suspect there will be few if any.

We’ve seen this type before. They burst on the scene from obscurity claiming and/or behaving as if they have all the answers—at least all the important ones.

And then they’re gone.

I can hardly wait.

[Mike Rago]

Mr. Burnham,

Everything you just posted is just bluster. When it comes to the Grassy Knoll I will put my knowledge up against anyone, including Gary Mack.

You say that my lack of understanding permeates almost every single post I have made in this forum.

Please show some specific examples of that.

I do not run away from questions.

I do have a lot of confidence that is because I know the evidence supports me. That is the only reason.

And if I am wrong, like I was with Red Shirt Man being black and DCM I admit and move on. I do make mistakes.

The only thing that I am interested in is finding the truth.

I had no opinion of the SBT until the James Gordon's threads. I read them all with a lot of interest. I was undecided. But I am no longer undecided. After today's discussion I am positive the SBT makes more sense than the alternative theories.

For the SBT to be wrong either two bullets have to be found, or two exit wounds have to be found or you have to believe in blood soluble bullets.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Cliff Varnell]

After today's discussion I am positive the SBT makes more sense than the alternative theories.

The burden of proof is on you to reconcile the evidence with your conclusion.

You've only recently started studying the SBT evidence -- why are you so cocky with your conclusion?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, after all.

[Mike Rago]

If I am "cocky" it is because the alternative theories are just so bizarre that the SBT makes a lot sense in comparison.

But it is really more than that.

This simple logic makes a lot sense to....

If the SBT is incorrect there has got to be either two missing bullets or two missing exit wounds. The most simple, logical explanation is the SBT, a single bullet passing through the president and the governor.

When you are shooting at a car full of people it is not that hard to accept that a single bullet could hit more than one person, particularly if the bullet was fired from a rifle with a muzzle velocity > 2000 fps.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

Mike...

Remind us again what you've been RIGHT about...

and then maybe look up a few essays and lectures written by Mr. Salandria and LEARN something.

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

Edited August 7, 2012 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

Mr. Rago is demonstrating his penchant for minimizing that to which he either lacks the intellectual capacity to understand or the courage to accept.

That is not to say that I necessarily subscribe to the supposition that this weapon system was definitely employed in Dallas. I do not. However, merely

acknowledging the fact that there is sufficient supporting evidence to entertain the possibility does seem warranted.

But not for Mr. Rago who authoritatively pronounced his papal ruling on this subject, as well as many others, from on high: as if he is speaking from first

hand knowledge. Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. His lack of understanding permeates nearly every one of the many topics he has started on

this forum. His lack of a basic grasp of the evidence is gargantuan. Mind you, this alone is nothing about which he should feel ashamed. However, his far-

reaching arrogance is. It is embarrassing to observe.

Mr. Rago behaves as if he knows for certain “what did or did not” happen. He utters pronouncements of dismissal to render as trivial any areas of study in

which he has never even before been engaged! Yet, it has taken seasoned researchers sometimes more than a decade to reach conclusions about these

subjects. Many are still undecided because there exists conflicting evidence, which still has yet to “settle” sufficiently to render absolute judgments. But, not

for Mike Rago: he is certain after only a few weeks—sometimes after a few minutes—of research.

Perhaps other seasoned researchers will be more patient with him, but I suspect there will be few if any.

We’ve seen this type before. They burst on the scene from obscurity claiming and/or behaving as if they have all the answers—at least all the important ones.

And then they’re gone.

I can hardly wait.

Bernard Haire today... Donald Goin tomorrow