Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jake Hammond says he's not an LNer. Yet so far we know that he believes....

  • The single bullet theory.
  • That the gaping head wound wasn't at the back of the head.

As they say, if it quacks like a duck....


(Smells like another Arizona Lawyer story.)

 

Sandy please read my longer post above properly. I quite clearly say that there was a blow out to the back of the head. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat did no such thing. He uses a small number of Dealey Plaza spectators to support his POV, but they are the least reliable of the witnesses. First because they were taken by surprise, and second because they had only 1/4 of a second to view the damage.

 

From what I remember he reconciled the Z film and autopsy by proving that everyone within 50 feet said it was the top right that blew out. And ... since they didn’t have CGI then , for me , that is a done deal. However ... was there a black blob added at the rear of the head to hide the rear blow out ? Yes I think there was. 

Mutual exclusivity ! The two things can run in parallel . Just because the grass is always green doesn’t always mean that the sky is blue . 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The only time those things are the Best Evidence is when they haven't been tampered with.  40+ witnesses prove that it's been tampered with.

No, Sandy, those witnesses do not "prove" any such thing.

There hasn't been a single CTer in the history of "CTers" who has "proved" that any of the autopsy photos or X-rays (or the Z-Film) have been faked or "tampered with". And they never will.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

No, Sandy, they do not.

There hasn't been a single CTer in the history of "CTers" who has "proved" that any of the autopsy photos or X-rays (or the Z-Film) have been faked or "tampered with". And they never will.

I have thrown the gauntlet down in several posts for CTers to provide a hypothesis of their own to reconcile the known facts and not a single person has stepped forward. I ended up doing it myself on another topic . My point is ... it’s very easy to point and criticise when people like myself try to reconcile and explain but there needs to be an alternative presented . 

 Come on guys , show me your facts and I’ll show you mine ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Are you talking to the LNers or the CTers in your above post?

Cters as people like yourself and in a lesser way myself have done so . I mean I’d like Sandy for example to suggest a timeline of shots, where they cane from and what the damage was . There is just no positivity from that side of the fence. It’s all scoffing and inferences ...

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Mainly because the BEST EVIDENCE---the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays (in conjunction with the Zapruder Film and JFK's autopsy report)---PROVES for all time that there was no large BOH wound.

 

IOW you can believe the documented accounts of numerous eyewitnesses or you can believe the government. 

Tough choice!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, do you believe Von Pein?

Above he says both the photos and x rays were authenticated.  And he relies on the HSCA for that, even though we just showed him how the HSCA completely misrepresented their own evidence on this point.  And then both Baden and Blakey said they did not recall seeing those witness statements.

:please

Now let us proceed to repeat something I already stated and that somehow the Von Pein, FC, TP crowd ignores.  FC  distorted it out of its actual meaning, par for the course with him.

In the HSCA volumes it says that they could not find the original autopsy camera with which to do a comparison photo for authenticity purposes. (HSCA Vol 6, p 226 FN 1) 

As I noted above, the HSCA already misrepresented the evidence on the issue by saying the Bethesda witnesses saw something completely different than the Parkland witnesses.  As Gary notes, they also misrepresented this camera evidence.  Because they did find the camera.  But Blakey sent it back saying it could not be the correct one.  Because it could not match the pictures to this camera. Hmm. Now there is a way out of this and that is to claim the camera lens and shutter had changed. But we cannot determine that is the case since the HSCA deep sixed the actual notations on this experiment. (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DIEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 280)

Again, none of these people were aware of this?  That book has been out there for 15 years.

As per the x rays, I mean this is ludicrous. The 6.5 mm fragment did not show up on the original x rays.  But it did show up for the Ramsey Clark panel. The particle trail in the rear of the skull rising upward was reported by Humes in his report.  To his chagrin, before the ARRB, he had to admit its not there now. And these guys do their Lt Frank Drebin impersonation on this one. Plus there is the Mantik densitometer readings, which they also ignore.

Drebin times two.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

Sandy please read my longer post above properly. I quite clearly say that there was a blow out to the back of the head. 


Jake,

I saw some vagueness in what you wrote to Ron which made it seem like you believe what Pat Speer believes, that the wound on the back of the head was broken skull only and not a tear through the scalp. Plus you give credit to Pat Speer for his work on this. That's reason I said you don't believe there was a gaping hole on the back of the head.

But if you state clearly that you believe there was a large hole through the skull and scalp on the back of the head, I will retract what I said and I'll apologize to you. [Update: You already cleared that up in another post.]

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

However ... was there a black blob added at the rear of the head to hide the rear blow out ? Yes I think there was.

 

Okay, I'm convinced that you're not an LNer. I retract what I said earlier, and I apologize for ever thinking or saying you were. (Not that being an LNer is an awful thing.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, let me add in relation to the whole Arizona lawyer Church of the Conspiracy slur.

In my comments three frames above, I pointed out things that are simply a part of the evidentiary record. I did not discover these pieces of evidence.  Others did.  I was just repeating facts that have been out there for a very long time, at least 20 years.  To anyone who reads the important literature and the important writers, they are not really possible to ignore. They are simply a part of the record: the disappearing particle trail, the 6.5 mm fragment, the failure of the HSCA to resolve the original camera dispute, and the densitometer readings.

When you ignore those things, then you are relying not on fact, but on faith. That is belonging to a church.

In a court of law, at least in California, you would call a 402 hearing, without the jury, on these artifacts. Maybe in Arpaio land you would not, but in CA you would.  Now if I was the defense I am not sure if I would want to knock it out.  For the simple matter that I would love to have the jury hear this stuff. Just as I would love them to hear Stringer deny he ever took the pics of the brain. I mean it would get to be Monty Pythonesque going through this ridiculous evidence trail. 

See, this is what is called fact based analysis, from people who do not want to cover things up.  Its the other side that wants to do that because they are faith based. As Bill Alexander said about CE 399, its like the Virgin Birth, you either believe in the miracle or you do not.  

Well their side does.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

From what I remember he reconciled the Z film and autopsy by proving that everyone within 50 feet said it was the top right that blew out. And ... since they didn’t have CGI then , for me , that is a done deal.

 

They didn't  have CGI, but the technology was certainly available to alter films. Adding that blob would have been much easier than adding four animated penguins dancing with Dick Van Dyke.

There's an explanation different from yours and Pat's that accounts for some of the Bethesda witnesses seeing a huge "wound" on the top right of the head. And that has to do with autopsy observers being ushered in and out of the room at different times. Those who arrived late didn't see the autopsists reflecting the scalp and removing bone fragments. So when they arrived they saw what looked to them like the top of his head blown off. One technician saw a missing brain whereas others didn't. It's all because they didn't all see the whole procedure.

 

mary-poppins-6.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

I’d like Sandy for example to suggest a timeline of shots, where they cane from and what the damage was . 

Do you expect anyone here to know that? Do we have some of the shooters here?

I believe Kellerman said he heard "a flurry of shots." Well, shouldn't he tell us where each shot came from and the damage it did?

Here's what I want to know: Who were the shooters working for?

 

 

 

 

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...