The Head Shot

[Wim Dankbaar]

I did not say that MOST of the witnesses heard more than 3 shots, I said that MANY witnesses heard two shots very close together, some of them adding that these could not have been fired from the same rifle.

Mark Lane: Mr Bowers, how many shots did you hear?

Lee Bowers: There were three shots and these were spaced with one shot, then a pause and then two shots in very close order, such as perhaps (knocking on table) knock ..... knock-knock. Almost on top of each other, while there was some pause between the first and the second shots.

Lane: Did you tell that to the Dallas Police?

Bowers: Yes, I told this to the police and then also told it to the FBI, and also I had a discussion two or three days later with them concerning this, and they made no comment other than the fact that when stated that I felt like the third and the second and third shot could not have been fired from the same rifle, they reminded me that I was not an expert. And I had to agree (Bowers smiles sourly).

(Lee Bowers died in 1966 in a mysterious car crash without witnesses on a lone Texas country road)

But hey, Folsom, I've seen enough of you and your twisting tactics. I am already violating my rule not to discuss with people who refuse to reveal their identity, so I am going to put you on ignore untill you do just that.

Wim

PS: And as for the privacy argument, that's what Skull and Bones members always use, and it's total BULL too, especially when rulers of the so called democratic free and OPEN world, who are affecting everyone's lives, are members and use the same BS argument.

Edited June 9, 2004 by dankbaar

[Lee Forman]

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the earwitness support for multiple gunmen firing from different locations is minimal. About 2% to be exact. While many witnessed did mistakenly think they heard four shots, virtually NONE said that shots came from two different locations. Doesn't this trouble you a bit?

Thanks for correcting the witnesses T. It's too bad you weren't around to help out in late November of '63.

"Who are you going to believe? [T], or your lying [ears]?"

Richard Prior

Just for the record, I discount the audible number of shots as having any bearing. The number of shots fired, including the clear, unfragmented bullet in the chrome of the windshield, as attested to by Carl Renas when he drove the Lincold from Washington to Cincinatti, to have the evidence destroyed indicates the use of silencers. The weapon used to fire from the LHO window was for show. I can't fathom why the GK shooter would have used a noisy weapon that created so much smoke - or was that the backfire of a motorcycle?

Also the medical evidence does not support the two direction theory either, nor do the clothes of either victim.

The medical evidence is unsupportable, and cannot be used for anything other than to prove that a cover-up took place. It is inconsistent, shows signs of tampering, alteration, destruction of evidence, etc. All useless in supporting your claims.

Not clear by what you mean when you say 'clothing.' If you are referring to the nick in Kennedy's tie made by the scalpel, this is again, a moot point. The throat shot came from the front. The bullet did not exit.

So the witnesses don't agree, the medical facts don't agree, and the clothing doesn't agree. Quite a theory.

Actually, you've just reinforced the crux of the entire matter. Thank you.

Some questions for you - what have you done to contribute, aside from having read and collected a large number of books on the subject? Have you ever done any of your own research? You throw an awful lot of empty stones, in my opinion. Why are you wasting everyone's time with these inanities?

It's interesting to note that you chose to raise the behavior of John Wilkes Booth, another 'conspirator' of his day.

Anyway, it's refreshing to see someone that has such strong faith, trust and confidence in the US Government.

- lee

[T. Folsom]

Dank: I did not say that MOST of the witnesses heard more than three shots.

T. Folsom: Oh really? Well what did you mean when you said: "I noticed that you accused Lee of ignoring the eyewitnesses, that most of them heard 3 shots (which is not true by the way..."

I stated that the majority of the earwitnesses heard three shots, you said it was not true. Then you turned around and denied saying that MOST of the witnesses heard more than three shots. Maybe I am confused. Did you mean that most of the witnesses heard TWO shots? You know as well as I do that the majority of witnesses who claimed to know how many shots were fired said three shots. There is no point juggling the testimonies to come up with a different spin. If you are going to argue for more than three shots you have to concede that the MAJORITY of the ear witnesses don't agree with your theory.

Bowers died mysteriously? Oh geez. Here comes Penn Jones again. Give that tired tactic a rest. There is absolutely no proof that when Bowers drove into the concrete abutment it was anything but an accident. Researcher David Perry wrote a very detailed discussion of Bowers in the "Third Decade" and determined his death was an accident. If you have EVIDENCE (not innuendo) then please put up or shut up.

By the way, I know you are far too paranoid to put me on ignore, it will eat away at you too much to see what I'm saying. Incidently I haven't used twisted tactics at all. I simply don't buy conspiracy nonsense, so to combat that troublesome fly in the ointment you label me a disinformationist, a deceiver, and a twisted tactician. You just don't like the fact that you and the conspiracy press haven't duped me like you have so many others.

I would like to say I'll miss our discussions but you really haven't offered anything to discuss, so I can't honestly say there is anything to miss. Next time I'm in the Netherlands I'll look you up. I'm sure being open and free with information you have your name and address in the phone book. In fact why don't you give them to me now and I will drop you a line with MY return address.

Ta ta.

[T. Folsom]

Lee--I discount the audible number of shots as having any bearing

T. F. --Well of course you do. Just like most conspiracy theorists you HAVE to ignore the evidence if you are going to champion your ridiculous theories. If you went by the evidence your theories would be laughed out of the room.

Lee--The medical evidence is unsupportable, and cannot be used for anything other than to prove that a cover-up took place. It is inconsistent, shows signs of tampering, alteration, destruction of evidence, etc. All useless in supporting your claims.

T.F.--So you don't accept the medical evidence either? You are a joke. Can you imagine what a jury would think if YOU were a lawyer defending a client and you told them,

"Ahem...ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. Earwitnesses will tell you that they heard evidence that points to my witness, but I want you to ignore that evidence please. Also doctors will testify that the bodies of the victims show a high probability that my client was also guilty. But if you would please, ignore that evidence as well. It can't be trusted."

You had better be talking loudly in that courtroom because the laughter from the jury and gallery would probably drown out you innane request for the jury to ignore all the evidence and simply believe your "theory." And remember your "theory" has no hard evidence to support it at all.

Lee--Not clear by what you mean when you say 'clothing.' If you are referring to the nick in Kennedy's tie made by the scalpel, this is again, a moot point. The throat shot came from the front. The bullet did not exit.

T. F.--Geez. Have you read ANYTHING on the Kennedy assassination? Are you really telling me that you are unaware that Kennedy's clothing, both shirt and jacket revealed the fibers in the back were pushed inward and the fibers on the front were pushed outward? Wait...let me guess...you want the jury to ignore that evidence as well since it doesn't agree with your moronic theory of a frontal shot. Please explain Kennedy's clothing fibers pushed inward on the back and outward on the front. How do you rationalize that evidence with your faulty theory of a front entrance and no exit wound? Good luck.

Concerning Booth. You're right he was a conspirator. And since there was a real conspiracy it was discovered within a few weeks following the assassination of Lincoln. Real conspiracies get discovered. The fact that after 40 years NOTHING has been proven in a Kennedy conspiracy only strengthens the Booth reference. If there was a conspiracy or a suspect they would have been discovered by now. No suspect...no conspiracy. Sorry.

[Paul Kerrigan]

Photographic evidence must be vouched for in a court of law. If there is massive eyewitness testimony against the photos, the surely would not be allowed to be entered into evidence. The HSCA concluded the following about the photgraphs.

- They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from anatomical landmarks.

- Not one of them contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the examination.

- Due to their lack of documentation and poor quality, the defense could have challenged the use of these photos as evidence in a trial, and even the prosecution might have had "second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative."

- The onus of establishing their authenticity would have rested with the prosecution. Harrison Livingstone correctly notes that this point and the previous one can rightly be seen as an admission that the photos would have been prima facie inadmissable as evidence in a court of law, and that the prosecution could have used them only after establishing their validity

[T. Folsom]

I agree, the photographs are not the best way to determine the location and extent of the injuries. It is the autopsy doctors to whom we refer for that information. And from that we learn that Kennedy was shot once from behind in the upper back five inches below the boney proturberance next to the right ear. And once in the back of the head, exiting the front. Thank you.

[Wim Dankbaar]

I'm sure being open and free with information you have your name and address in the phone book.  In fact why don't you give them to me now and I will drop you a line with MY return address.

Ta ta.

Wim Dankbaar

Ruysdaelweg 14

2051 EM Overveen

Netherlands

Telephone (31) 640456203

email info@jfkmurdersolved.com (the quickest way to drop me the line, apparently a thought you need help on to conceive it)

I'm waiting ...........

Edited June 10, 2004 by dankbaar

[T. Folsom]

I want to thank Dank for being a man of his word and putting me on ignore.

[Lee Forman]

T,

Does that mean you held up on your end of the bargain? Did you send Wim your info?

- lee

[Paul Kerrigan]

I agree, the photographs are not the best way to determine the location and extent of the injuries. It is the autopsy doctors to whom we refer for that information. And from that we learn that Kennedy was shot once from behind in the upper back five inches below the boney proturberance next to the right ear. And once in the back of the head, exiting the front. Thank you.

Well, I don't know how a wound fired into the external occipital protuberance would exit the top of the head like that. The autopsy pathologists never put the wound in the place shown by the autopsy photographs.

[Wim Dankbaar]

T,

Does that mean you held up on your end of the bargain? Did you send Wim your info?

- lee

Lee,

I guess T's info is underway, but stuck in traffic. We should not worry, I am sure T is a man of his word who doesn't play games.

Wim

[Wim Dankbaar]

I agree, the photographs are not the best way to determine the location and extent of the injuries.  It is the autopsy doctors to whom we refer for that information.  And from that we learn that Kennedy was shot once from behind in the upper back five inches below the boney proturberance next to the right ear.  And once in the back of the head, exiting the front.  Thank you.

Well, I don't know how a wound fired into the external occipital protuberance would exit the top of the head like that. The autopsy pathologists never put the wound in the place shown by the autopsy photographs.

Maynard,

I agree with "Folsom" that it is difficult to determine wound locations from faked photographs, so here is some info from "Folsom's" doctors to strengten your point.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm

"Thank you"

Edited June 11, 2004 by dankbaar