Robert Prudhomme Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 What would you like to know about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Robert, the conspirators created a 'pristine' bullet as irrefutable evidence of the connection to the MC rifle, what explanation do you think they considered as plausible for it's existence if it is not the shallow hole made in KENNEDYS back? Can you provide what would be a reasonable explanation for the existence of the 'pristine' bullet? Can you provide what would be a reasonable explanation for the existence of a shallow wound on the back of Our President? Edited December 12, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 Pamela Brown, it is interesting that the HSCA also suggested that one of the shots occurred at Z-190, thank you for this information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Robert Mady, The pristine bullet, we now know, is a fabrication created post-November 22, 1963. It is not the bullet Daryl Tomlinson found on a Parkland stretcher. That bullet had a pointed-type nose. Given this fact, I cannot believe the back wound, shallow or otherwise, was punched into JFK's back on the afternoon or evening of November 22. At that point, according to the record now known to exist, the pristine bullet had not yet been fabricated. It was fabricated later by the FBI, IMO. You make a convincing argument as to when certain persons heard the first shot. I'm not convinced however that the extant Z-film is a reliable record of what happened in Dealey Plaza. Nor am I convinced as to the number of shots fired. Based on what I've read, I have to believe more than three shots were fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 And the "pristine" bullet the WC used as evidence wasn't so "pristine." It was flattened quite a bit, so much that it was more oval shaped than round. Now what could squeeze a bullet in such a manner, when it allegedly ONLY passed through soft tissue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Jon, your are a reasonable person and I appreciate the careful consideration you are giving these issues. Let me ask you a question, I agree with you, that the first bullet planted on the stretcher was a Mauser projectile, IMO this would have been intended to be connected with the Argentine Mauser found on the sixth floor, when OSWALD was not murdered the plan had to change and OSWALD was turned into the 'patsy', the Mauser disappeared and mysteriously replaced with the MC rifle and the missile changed into a Carcano missile. But the same as applies to the MC missile what explanation would the conspirators plan to use for the 'pristine' (assuming it was also pristine) Mauser missile to explain its existence? It also would have to have been somehow justifiable, the same as the justification for the existence of the MC missile. What is the explanation for it if it is not the shallow hole made in the back of KENNEDY? Keep in mind that it is reasonable to expect a bullet to deform from just penetrating flesh, impacting bones deforms bullets significantly. Also the conspirators would not have attempted the assassination without extensive plans and extensive contingency plans, I seriously would doubt that the 'pristine' bullet was thought up and introduced on the fly, this had to have been well thought out in advance, from being able to offer a plausible explanation for its existence to the method to introduce the false evidence into existence. Thank you for letting me know the evidence posted is understandable and reasonable as to when witnesses heard the first rifle shot. Edited December 12, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Admiral George Burkley's Dallas Death Certificate Tom I don't know when the hole was created. Then you are ignoring a major hole in your argument. You are basically stating that the hole was created as though that were a fact. It isn't. It's an opinion or a theory. It was there at Parkland according to Burkley, Your theory requires someone at Parkland to have created it, or Burkley to lie about it, and the Bethesda doctors to lie about it also. Maybe you wouldn't mind posting George Burkley's Warren Commission Testimony ? If the above is a question or a challenge rather than a comment (I can't tell). Are you aware that Burkley wasn't called to testify? This has been cited as evidence that the WC was not seeking the truth. Burkley is an MD and the only doctor present at Parkland AND Bethesda. Affidavit - Admiral George Burkley: "There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. " Since you are convinced that the back wound was "created", do you believe this is supporting evidence? I don't see the relevance. Maybe you believe that KENNEDY wasn't wounded in the back of the head or wounded in the throat and the Parkland Doctors were responsible for mutilating the Presidents neck when they botched the tracheotomy? How is this germane to your theory that the hole in his back was created? But since you asked (or is it rhetorical?); I do believe there was a head wound in the back, and in the throat. I do NOT believe the Parkland doctors messed with the body, nor do I believe the Parkland doctors "botched" the tracheotomy. Since I haven't implied ANY of the above, I have to wonder WHY you are asking these questions. Is this what YOU believe? When you stated that you "don't know" how the back wound was created, that answered my question. After that I don't understand why any of your questions were included. If my comments don't answer your questions, you need to be clear exactly what it is you are asking... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 And the "pristine" bullet the WC used as evidence wasn't so "pristine." It was flattened quite a bit, so much that it was more oval shaped than round. Now what could squeeze a bullet in such a manner, when it allegedly ONLY passed through soft tissue? Mark, I believe the word "pristine" is more of a reference that there was no tissue or blood on the bullet rather than no physical damage. The FBI witness was asked by the WC how the bullet was "cleaned." He responded that it "didn't need to be cleaned." Of course this is a bullet that supposedly passed through Kennedy and Connally... How could it be devoid of any bio matter? This should have been regarded as proof that the SBT is absurd. My understanding is the only deformation of the bullet was caused by firing, which is evidence that this specific bullet did not hit either JFK or JBC. IMO it was a "test bullet" substituted for the actual bullet found on the stretcher either by the SS or the FBI. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Tom 1) If the hole was not punched into KENNEDYS back, what caused it? YES it is my opinion that this hole in fact was punched into his back and is additional proof of a conspiracy and a cover-up. BUT I am open to alternative explanations, so far I have not seen any posted. Unless you have a reasonable explanation for the shallow back wound please consider stopping the ridicule of this concept. 2) The fact that BURKLEY did not testify might be significant. 3) BURKLEY claimed the wounds identified at Parkland were identical to the wounds autopsied. This mean he supports WC conclusion that JFK was not wounded in the back of the head, but on the front top right side of the head, the autopsy also failed to identify the wound in the throat, so BURKLEY also by default supports no wound in the throat, he also is stating that the mutilated throat wound was created by Parkland doctors. The Parkland doctor that performed the tracheotomy was shown autopsy photos and was appalled by what he saw, he claimed that if this mutilation had been performed on KENNEDY he would have died from the tracheotomy. The wound was not a result of procedures performed by Doctors at Parkland, the mutilation was done to obscure the entrance wound in the throat and or to retrieve the missile that caused the wound. 4) How is it germane? BURKLEY lied about the wounds being identical, BURKELY LIED, if he lied once there is no reason not be believe he lied more than once... 5) Just because I have not analyzed how or when the back wound was created is not an acceptable rejection of the argument. Others such as LIFTON have done extensive work on this, you want to know about it I would suggest that you review Mr. Lifton's work. I have asked for alternative theories on how the shallow back wound could have been created, I am still open to other ideas, someone please enlighten me. Edited December 12, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Robert Mady, I don't know, but I've always believed the purpose for fabricating the pristine bullet was to produce a bullet that [a] could be tied to alleged murder weapon, and could be tied arguably to JFK's death. I've not thought a lot of thinking went into the fabrication. Clearly though a lot of thinking went into making the pristine bullet the magic bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) Jon, I am curious, if you would indulge me, it seems that you have some discomfort in accepting the proposal that the "pristine' bullet, the shallow hole in the back of KENNEDY and the planting of evidence was not completely preplanned, this would include two rifles and two bullets that would tie each missile to the exclusion of all others to each respective rifle. Exactly What is it about this proposal that you find unacceptable? I am in agreement with you about the "magic" bullet. Edited December 13, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) Robert Several doctors at Parkland observed JFK's trachea (windpipe) to be deviated slightly to the left. While several of these doctors speak of bi-lateral (both sides) chest tubes being inserted to relieve pressure in each lung's pleural cavity, there is a significant percentage of these doctors that only speak of a chest tube being inserted into the right pleural cavity. Dr. Marion Jenkins, in his testimony to the WC, speaks of JFK having a pneumothorax: "Dr. Jenkins - About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube." Robert, without going off on a tangent, do you understand what a pneumothorax is, why a chest tube is inserted as an essential part of the treatment to relieve a pneumothorax, and the significance of all the things I stated in the first paragraph? Do you also understand the implications this has for the "shallow" back wound, if JFK did indeed have a tension pneumothorax in his right lung? Edited December 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) The following two webpages might prove helpful to some people here.... Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 Robert, I thought my questions were very clear, may I ask them again in case you missed them? The conspirators created a 'pristine' bullet as irrefutable evidence of the connection to the MC rifle, what explanation do you think they considered as plausible for it's existence if it is not the shallow hole made in KENNEDYS back? Can you provide what would be a reasonable explanation for the existence of the 'pristine' bullet? Can you provide what would be a reasonable explanation for the existence of a shallow wound on the back of Our President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) Robert In my opinion, a pristine bullet with a pointed nose really was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, by sheer coincidence, and it had nothing to do with the assassination. When the nature of JFK's and Connally's wounds became apparent, and the need for one bullet to cause so many wounds, the inspiration for a "magic" bullet arose, and the bullet-on-the-stretcher story was emulated with a round nosed Carcano bullet. Quite simply put, the bullet HAD to be pristine, or nearly pristine, as the final wound on Connally's inner thigh was so small and neat, it could only have been made by an undeformed bullet. I actually have other ideas as to what caused the thigh wound, but that is another topic. A deformed or expanded bullet would have made a much larger and messier wound in his thigh and, therefore, was ineligible as the multi-wound bullet. I can give you no reason for a shallow wound in JFK's back and, as you well know, I do not think such a wound was even possible. Now, it is your turn to address my post, and answer my questions. Edited December 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme 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