Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was The HSCA's conclusion helpful to the case of certain 'Conspiracy Theories'


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

27 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

I've never come across any physical evidence that proves four or more shots. Where can I find that?

  1. Back wound.
  2. EOP wound
  3. All of Connally's wounds.
  4. Missed shot (Tague).

Others might add:

  1. Temple/forehead wound, exit from rear blowout.  (Most CTers accept this.)
  2. Neck wound. (Most CTers accept this. I don't. I believe this was caused by the EOP bullet.)
  3. Hole in windshield.
  4. Others?

At least five shots by my count.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Andy, just wondering. If you believe the throat wound was caused by the EOP bullet, what caused JFK to reach for his throat as they came past the Freeway sign?

Well, the autopsists testified for the HSCA that a bullet passed through the scalp near the EOP, but didn't penetrate the skull there. It tunneled between the scalp and skull, and skidded along the skull. It was at that point in the testimony that someone said that what they were saying didn't belong on the record. So the recording was stopped.

Lt. Lipsey was a witness at the autopsy and he testified that the autopsists were convinced that the EOP bullet had exited the throat wound. He said they had a probe going through that path. That probe was witnessed by a technician whose name I forget.

My belief is based on that. And also another technician who said he saw in the neck x-ray bullet fragments in the neck.

I believe a fragment of that bullet hit the transverse process of a vertebrae. (This damage was noted.) A splinter of that exited the throat and created that wound. Another fragment continued down and hit the apex of the right lung. (This damage was noted.) This collapsed the lung (something that has pretty much been proven by Robert Prudhomme). The trauma to that area, and the collapsed lung, had JFK reaching for his throat. (Or chest... whatever he is reaching for.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Andy, just wondering. If you believe the throat wound was caused by the EOP bullet, what caused JFK to reach for his throat as they came past the Freeway sign?

When I watch the Z film I see JFK's hands go up, then I see him tap at his chest a few times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

I've never come across any physical evidence that proves four or more shots. Where can I find that?

 

The bullet holes in JFK's clothing, 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- too low to account for the throat wound.

Every time Paul Baker casually raises his right arm and waves a la JFK in the motorcade, the fabric of his shirt INDENTS along his right shoulder-line.

Every.  Single.  Time.

If he bothers to observe this -- the evidence of 4+ shots is literally right under Paul Baker's nose.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

The bullet holes in JFK's clothing, 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- too low to account for the throat wound.

Every time Paul Baker casually raises his right arm and waves a la JFK in the motorcade, the fabric of his shirt INDENTS along his right shoulder-line.

Every.  Single.  Time.

If he bothers to observe this -- the evidence of 4+ shots is literally right under Paul Baker's nose.

 

Wielding the weaponized fact of conspiracy yields one of two results -- they either babble nonsense or STFU.

Works every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

I've never come across any physical evidence that proves four or more shots. Where can I find that?

Paul B.,

I would cite the three spent bullet shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and then the single shot from the Grassy Knoll which was offered to the HSCA as "acoustic evidence" by the Weiss-Aschkenasy analysis, which the HSCA accepted   That's four.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 8:37 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Paul, your take on the Walker shooting / rifle discovery incident makes sense to me.

Marina was definitely in the worst possible position to be able to separate herself from her husband.

Joe,

Thanks for the vote.  All of my story comes from the Warren Commission testimony of these people.  I didn't invent any of it.  It makes sense all by itself.

Of course -- there are loud detractors out there who deny that LHO ever owned a rifle at all -- or that the Oswalds ever lived at Neeley Street in the first place. 

I don't waste much time with them.  95% of the WC witnesses told the truth to the best of their ability.  The only folks who lied to the Warren Commission were those who were directly involved in the JFK plot -- i.e.specific members of the Radical Right in Dallas, including some DPD officials.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Joe,

Of course -- there are loud detractors out there who deny that LHO ever owned a rifle at all -- or that the Oswalds ever lived at Neeley Street in the first place. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, I have had way too much time to spend on this forum in the last 3 months. Until yesterday I have not seen a single claim the LHO did not own a rifle. Until today I have not seen a single claim that the Oswalds never lived on Neely.

Cheers,

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 14, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Paul, your take on the Walker shooting / rifle discovery incident makes sense to me.

Marina was definitely in the worst possible position to be able to separate herself from her husband.

 

Joe:

You are saying that you believe all that stuff about the notebook, about the pictures, about burying the rifle--which Paul uses Ruth Paine to bail him out of--and you discount all the countervailing evidence against it?  Which Paul never mentions.

Are you aware of it?  Have you read Breach of Trust?

Even Wesley Liebeler said:  Why would he destroy the notebook and keep the photos?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
  1. Back wound.
  2. EOP wound
  3. All of Connally's wounds.
  4. Missed shot (Tague).

At least five shots by my count.

This list certainly doesn't prove that there were more than three shots. It's your (and others') interpretation of these events. The reality is that the three shot scenario is the most probable by far, based on the totality of the available evidence:

  1. A single weapon was involved in the assassination. No other weapons have been recovered.
  2. Bullet fragments and the almost whole bullet recovered at Parkland were determined to have come from a single source.
  3. A single bullet caused wounds to JFK and Connally. An analysis of the trajectory of the missile and the positions of JFK and Connally at the moment of this shot supports this fact. They can also be seen reacting to an external stimulus simultaneously in the Zapruder film. NAA also supports the single bullet scenario.
  4. All wounds sustained during the timeline of the assassination support a single, fixed source of the shooting.
  5. The vast majority of witnesses reported hearing exactly three shots (If there were five shots, I'd have at least expected witness testimony to support that idea).
  6. Three spent shells were recovered in the TSBD following the assassination.
  7. Nobody saw another shooter*, and neither is there any unambiguous (i.e. not open to interpretation) evidence of additional shooters.

* Beverley Oliver, Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffmann et al. are not honest, reliable witnesses.

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Baker said:
On 2/15/2017 at 2:53 AM, Sandy Larsen said:
  1. Back wound.
  2. EOP wound
  3. All of Connally's wounds.
  4. Missed shot (Tague).

At least five shots by my count.

This list certainly doesn't prove that there were more than three shots. It's your (and others') interpretation of these events. The reality is that the three shot scenario is the most probable by far, based on the totality of the available evidence:


Hey pal, you're on the wrong forum. We take conflicting evidence seriously here.

You must be looking for the McAdams forum.

Don't waste our time and we won't waste yours.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
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...