Adjusted Position

[David G. Healy]

And, as an ole "coon hunter", Jethro would also know that a normal entry of a bullet through clothing, does not remove fabric from the clothing as it merely pushes the fabric aside as it passes through.

Exactly like the top left photo of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through the cloth fabric of a shirt.

Therefore, a normal wound of entry would not have fabric from the worn clothing carried down into the wound.

However, Jethro is smart enough to recognize that the clothing (shirt shown) as worn by JFK had an oval "Punch-type" section of the fabric removed, and Dr. Boswell has clearly stated that the "atypical" wound of entry into the back of JFK had considerable fabric from the clothing carried down into the wound.

You see, Jethro knows that a "paper punch" not only punches out the nice neat little round hole in the paper, but it also carries the removed portion of the paper down into the little "catch tray" which is a part of the paper punch.

My oh My, what they are teaching these sixth graders nowadays.

not leaving many options -- wound made after death?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And, as an ole "coon hunter", Jethro would also know that a normal entry of a bullet through clothing, does not remove fabric from the clothing as it merely pushes the fabric aside as it passes through.

Exactly like the top left photo of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through the cloth fabric of a shirt.

Therefore, a normal wound of entry would not have fabric from the worn clothing carried down into the wound.

However, Jethro is smart enough to recognize that the clothing (shirt shown) as worn by JFK had an oval "Punch-type" section of the fabric removed, and Dr. Boswell has clearly stated that the "atypical" wound of entry into the back of JFK had considerable fabric from the clothing carried down into the wound.

You see, Jethro knows that a "paper punch" not only punches out the nice neat little round hole in the paper, but it also carries the removed portion of the paper down into the little "catch tray" which is a part of the paper punch.

My oh My, what they are teaching these sixth graders nowadays.

David;

Will get back to you on that "wound creation" concept in a little.

Right now, am having difficulty posting and getting attachments through, and wanted to finish most of this if possible.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And, as an ole "coon hunter", Jethro would also know that a normal entry of a bullet through clothing, does not remove fabric from the clothing as it merely pushes the fabric aside as it passes through.

Exactly like the top left photo of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet through the cloth fabric of a shirt.

Therefore, a normal wound of entry would not have fabric from the worn clothing carried down into the wound.

However, Jethro is smart enough to recognize that the clothing (shirt shown) as worn by JFK had an oval "Punch-type" section of the fabric removed, and Dr. Boswell has clearly stated that the "atypical" wound of entry into the back of JFK had considerable fabric from the clothing carried down into the wound.

You see, Jethro knows that a "paper punch" not only punches out the nice neat little round hole in the paper, but it also carries the removed portion of the paper down into the little "catch tray" which is a part of the paper punch.

My oh My, what they are teaching these sixth graders nowadays.

David;

Will get back to you on that "wound creation" concept in a little.

Right now, am having difficulty posting and getting attachments through, and wanted to finish most of this if possible.

Try this again on those bullet penetrations through a shirt.

Top left:----------------Normal Entry

Other:-----------------JFK's shirt with oval "punch-type" entry with fabric missing.

[Nick Bartetzko]

Next, when we know that either a "paper punch" or a flat-nosed "wadcutter" bullet creates an entry point which has relatively clean cut edges, and we recognize that CE#399 has only one flat end, and that flat end measures the exact dimensions as to the entry wound into the back of JFK, and that entry wound had relatively clean-cut edges, then even our "Jethro Bodine" sixth grade children can figure out exactly which end of CE399 struck JFK and is responsible for the back entry wound.

I know little about ballistics. Could you or "Jethro" just answer a couple of questions for me....1) what is the likelihood of a tumbling bullet leaving what appears to be a clean 4x7mm wound? 2) wouldn't any tumbling bullet leave a much larger wound, more in keeping with the length of the bullet itself?

I know little about ballistics.

Well!

While I dig out the answer to your question, perhaps a little comparison would be of benefit.

P.S. It was long ago reviewed by one with the full credentials of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) and a full member of AFTE.

Tom

I reviewed the document, photos etc. You research is meticulous and your theories are "persuasive". But you make a supposition that a tumbling bullet would leave as clean an entry wound (4x7mm) striking from the tail end vs the nose end and that is specifically what I do not understand. Are you saying that all tumbling bullets will leave sharp entry wounds? I will phrase it a different way. If a bullet is fired directly into a tree branch and begins to tumble/wobble, what factors (deflection, velocity?) affect whether that wobbling bullet would enter perfectly to match the precise 4 x 7mm measurement or leave a much larger wound indicative of a tumbling, wobbling object? If a bullet wobbles side to side, it would leave a larger wound and if it wobbles end over end, it would need to strike at a very precise point to leave a clean 4x7mm wound. I don't know any other way to phrase my questions. I don't recall you discussing the characteristics of tumbling bullets and what ballistics issues would determine a larger than normal wound vs a standard wound.

Nick

[Nick Bartetzko]

duplicate post deleted

Edited July 31, 2007 by Nick Bartetzko

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom

I reviewed the document, photos etc. You research is meticulous and your theories are "persuasive". But you make a supposition that a tumbling bullet would leave as clean an entry wound (4x7mm) striking from the tail end vs the nose end and that is specifically what I do not understand. Are you saying that all tumbling bullets will leave sharp entry wounds? I will phrase it a different way. If a bullet is fired directly into a tree branch and begins to tumble/wobble, what factors (deflection, velocity?) affect whether that wobbling bullet would enter perfectly to match the precise 4 x 7mm measurement or leave a much larger wound indicative of a tumbling, wobbling object? If a bullet wobbles side to side, it would leave a larger wound and if it wobbles end over end, it would need to strike at a very precise point to leave a clean 4x7mm wound. I don't know any other way to phrase my questions. I don't recall you discussing the characteristics of tumbling bullets and what ballistics issues would determine a larger than normal wound vs a standard wound.

Nick

All of which are entirely relevant questions which must be sufficiently answered.

Please excuse the circumvent manner in which I should eventually get around to this. However, I have dug through the boxes of materials so much and so jumbled items that it is now a complete nightmare to even find the most simple item.

As to the "end over end" tumbling action, this is a demonstrated fact which I have fired multiple WCC Carcano bullets through a 0ne-inch thich live oak limb and thereafter monitered their actions upon exit from the limb.

Tumbling generally begins to occur in approximately 6-feet after exit from the limb and by some 12-feet after exit, the bullet has made at least one full 360-degree tumble.

I found that there was no absolute as to the degree of deflection of the bullet after exit, although all of those which did not remain within a 6-inch wide corridor/zone, for 12+ feet after having struck the tree limb, generally exited the zone to the left side at/around 8-feet from the point of impact with the limb.

And, even though the bullet may initially have a somewhat side to side "wobble" upon initial exit from the limb, the ballistic nature of he projectile as opposed to air resistance, soon corrects this to a virtually end-over-end tumbling rotation of the bullet.

The distance from the tree limbs of the live oak tree directly in front of the Sixth Floor Window of the TSDB, to JFK, was approximately 75 to 85 feet, which was almost exactly one-half the total distance of the first shot which was in fact slightly over 155+ feet.

Therefore, any "sidways" wobble of the bullet was long gone by the time of impact.

In addition, there are several other somewhat extenuating circumstances which must be taken into consideration.

1. The Scope was mounted approximately 2-inches higher than the actual bore-sight of the rifle barrel.

2. Therefore, line-of-sight through the scope was not line-of-flight of the bullet at these close ranges.

4. A mistake which initial/inexperienced "scope shooters" usually find out real fast. (myself included).

5. Which also adds to the probablility as to why the shot at Walker also missed and the projectile struck the metal window frame.

6. Add to this the question of why?????? at the closest shot, when in fact the limo had not gained speed after coming out of the curve, the shooter merely got JFK in the upper back/lower neck, right of center, when JFK was in fact travelling slightly left-to right across the field of fire and thus actually decreasing the "cross-angle" of fire.

7. And, since I am quite obviously not smarter than the auspices of the US Government/JEH/FBI to resolve this issue, then it is also fully understandable as to why, the day after completion of the WC assassination re-enactment, members of this group were observed with a bucket lift and they were cutting and removing the limbs from the top of the live oak tree.

And Lastly:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-benne.htm

and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm

I would also take the time to read Glenn Bennett's handwritten notes which were written while in transit back to DC as regards having observed this shot strike JFK.

(PPS) For David H. as well as the other David who made up the nonsense of body snatchers and manually made wounds).

Unless one assumes that Agent Bennett was part of the "Giant" overall plan to jab JFK in the back with a #3 or #4 rebar, then he is in fact the first evidence of the strike to JFK's back as the wound was not observed at Parkland and was not found until late into the actual autopsy.

Now!

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that Glenn Bennet did not/could not have observed a 6.5mm Carcano bullet which was travelling at some 2,000 to 2,200 feet per second.

Wanna take a guess as to whether or not a 6.5mm Carcano bullet which has a severely diminished velocity and is rotating end-over-end, can bee seen with the naked eye.

Not unlike much of the other factual evidence:

That one does not understand the evidence, is not indicative that the witness giving that evidence is telling a lie.

It usually just means that one does not understand the evidence.

Will get to the remainder of your questions as soon as I find which box it is stuffed into.

Tom

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

Glenn Bennett's handwritten notes

Edited July 31, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"You research is meticulous"

Before continuation, let me state:

Upon being invited to participate in this talk show, I was completely "mislead" by it's name, "The Education Forum".

With a name like this, I unfortunately assumed that those who post here had some basis and foundation in proper reserach protocal, and thus there would be additional "great" revelations into the facts of the assassination as well as the facts behind LHO.

All of which clearly demonstrates how wrong anyone can be.

Nevertheless, while I search & dig for the answers to your question, here are the answers to one which you have yet to ask.

Since, not unlike the altered survey data; the "adjusted position"; revelation of all of the survey data other than merely the WC; the impact point of the third/last/final shot down in front of Altgens; along with a host of other answers to questions, I was also the first to recognize that CE399, as it currently exists in evidence, was missing it's portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet, then this too, not unlike the "adjusted position" and all other aspects related to this shot, must be fully understood as to the WHY???? it was done.

And, although much of this was originally posted under the "FIRST SHOT" topic, it has by now long been deleted.

Thus, for those who missed the original showing, this is, I assure you, the last time that I am going to dig through this stuff, as there are already sufficient true researchers who recognize the factual information which is being presented and will ultimately spread these facts to others.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"You research is meticulous"

Before continuation, let me state:

Upon being invited to participate in this talk show, I was completely "mislead" by it's name, "The Education Forum".

With a name like this, I unfortunately assumed that those who post here had some basis and foundation in proper reserach protocal, and thus there would be additional "great" revelations into the facts of the assassination as well as the facts behind LHO.

All of which clearly demonstrates how wrong anyone can be.

Nevertheless, while I search & dig for the answers to your question, here are the answers to one which you have yet to ask.

Since, not unlike the altered survey data; the "adjusted position"; revelation of all of the survey data other than merely the WC; the impact point of the third/last/final shot down in front of Altgens; along with a host of other answers to questions, I was also the first to recognize that CE399, as it currently exists in evidence, was missing it's portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet, then this too, not unlike the "adjusted position" and all other aspects related to this shot, must be fully understood as to the WHY???? it was done.

And, although much of this was originally posted under the "FIRST SHOT" topic, it has by now long been deleted.

Thus, for those who missed the original showing, this is, I assure you, the last time that I am going to dig through this stuff, as there are already sufficient true researchers who recognize the factual information which is being presented and will ultimately spread these facts to others.

Back in 1989/1990, when an interest in CE 399 first began, a complete evaluation of this bullet as well as the comparative analysis work began.

Despite this, at that time, there was no way to resolve the issue of the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet.

And, FBI Agent Robert Frazier as well as FBI Agent Gallagher both informed me that as far as they recalled, the base to the bullet was intact when they examined the bullet.

Thus, a complete dead end on resolving the issue of the missing portion of the copper jacket at the bullet base.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Needless to say, the missing portion of the copper jacket at the base of the bullet, is considerably more evident when we again utilized the standard of "comparative analysis" for the bullet, with another WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

Additionally, when one looks at the base of a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet which has merely been shot into a drum of water and recovered, there is the tell-tale indication of the lead protrusion out the base of he bullet, merely from the compressive force exerted onto the bullet as it passes through the barrel of the rifle.

All of which also clearly demonstrates exactly what a "NORMAL" bullet base appears like after having been fired.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Just a friendly reminder here on what happens when one actually "squeezes" a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

All that one has to do is think "toothpast tube".

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Since I found these while digging, may as well show their comparison.

Top photo is a normal Carcano entrance through a coat.

Bottom photo is a "wadcutter"/flat-nosed Carcano entrance through a coat.

When compared with the shirt, does not leave much doubt as to why the upper back/lower neck wound of JFK had so much fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound of entry.

Also:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - I noticed that the hole penetrated both the outer and lining areas of the coat, that it was roughly circular in shape. When I first examined it it was approximately one-fourth of an inch in diameter, and the cloth fibers around the margins of the hole were pushed inward at the time I first examined it in the laboratory.

Mr. SPECTER - Can you tell the size of the bullet from. the hole in the jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER - The hole in the jacket is approximately a quarter of an inch in diameter.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Commission, I would like to have identified for the record three articles on which I have placed Commission Exhibits Nos. 393 being the coat worn by the President, 394 being the shirt, and 395 being the President's tie, and at this time move for their admission into evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, does the one which you have described as the entry of the bullet go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes through both layers.

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hole at the edge of the collar, which went through both the outer coat and the inner liner in an irregular fashion. is the bullet entrance hole for the third/last/final shot which occured down in front of James Altgens at a time when JFK was bent fully forward with his face down and turned to the side.

The bullet penetrated through the slightly raised coat collar on a tangent, exited to strike JFK at the base of the neck in the edge of the hairline, and therafter penetrated through the soft tissue of the neck before striking the skull in the EOP region.

Not unlike the "adjusted position", certainly glad that Mr. Specter & Company did not pull that "WOOL" over my eyes as well.

P.S. Any serious researcher would also know that the "note from Mom" in regards to the top/collar bullet hole, has also disappeared from the National Archives.

And, a truly dedicated (or stupid) researcher would have expended the time and effort (and a little loose change) to locate and speak with each and every FBI Agent who had anything to do with the examination of the clothing as well as ballistic evidence in this issue and matter.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

not leaving many options -- wound made after death?

David;

Since I am running quite thin on "attachment" space, will get around to this one.

When I think of the "body snatch & wound making" theory and concept, I am instantly reminded of some of the truly good SF NCO's who used to sit around the bar and think up such practical jokes and decide exactly who they were going to pull it on.

And believe me, some of the things which they thought up, pulled, and got others to believe, by far exceeded the limits of the "Lifton" theory.

Therefore, I look at the "body snatch/wound alteration" scenario as being more closely related to something which Marquis; Hetzler; Shumate; Pappy Loggins; Smitty; etc; etc; etc; would have sat around and dreamed up, and thereafter taken bets with each other as to exactly how many persons that they could convince to believe this story.

In other words, a "Bar Bet"!

Of course, not everyone has to get somewhat "drunk ignorant" in order to come up with stories which are so full of holes that anyone who reviews the facts can easily distinguish that this must be another of those "who's this ignorant" bar bets.

The "originator' of the Body Snatch theory appears to have neglected to expound on the fact that Glen Bennet, shortly after the assassination, wrote down that he observed the bullet strike JFK in the back.

Now, as we all know, no back wound was observed at Parkland, and even during the actual autopsy it was not found until later in the course of the autopsy.

Nevertheless, Glenn Bennet, in handwritten notes which were made in route between Dallas and Bethesda, referenced that this wound existed and that the impact was observed on Elm St.

I know! Bennett was a part of the GIANT Master Plan to confuse us, and was merely a "plant" to lead us astray.

Unfortunately however, Bennett was never called to testify, and his factual reporting only came to light when much of the SS Agent Testimonies was published.

Next of course, we have the actual back wound.

Measurement 4mm X 7mm, same as base of CE399.

Now, in this, are we to assume that the Giant Master Plan called for the perpetrators to create a wound in the back of JFK which in addition to being an "atypical" wound of entry, also matched exactly in size the base of CE399????

What idiotic part of this GIANT Master Plan called for something to indicate that the bullet which struck JFK did so in a completely reverse attitude/base-first position?

Next of course, we have the clothing/fabric which was carried down into the wound.

Since we know that JFK was undressed while at Parkland, and his clothing went one way while he went another, did Clint Hill jab JFK in the back with a ball point pin or some such item as Clint climbed aboard the Presidential Limo???

If not, then exactly who and where was JFK "re-dressed" in order that someone could poke him in the upper back/shoulder, in a manner to carry fabric from some clothing down into the wound of entry, and then undress JFK again and re-stuff him back into the casket.

All of which fabric into the wound also goes against the typical ballistic characteristics of a normal wound of entry.

In continuation:

We have the "abrasion collar" as determined by the HSCA, which was located at the bottom edge of the wound.

(I will go into the explanation of this again later).

When, by all know standards, when a bullet strikes on a downward angle, the abrasion collar is located at the top of the entry point.

So, were these perpetrators of the Giant Master Plan so stupid that they jabbed the hole into the back of JFK at an angle which would have meant that someone hiding in the trunk of the car would have had to shoot JFK????

Then of course, we have the 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry as stated by Dr. Humes and the other autopsy surgeons.

Now! Did the perpetrators jab JFK in the back two times???

One time on an upward angle to create the abrasion collar on the bottom of the wound, and then a second time on a downward angle to create the 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry which the autopsy surgeons found.

Well now, this is just plumb genius!

In continuation, exactly how was it that the perpetrators knew:

1. How to create only slight damage to the right transverse process of either C7 or T1 vertebrae and leave metallic fragments/residue embedded in the neck.

2. To cease jabbing their rebar (or whatever it was supposed to be) at exactly the point that although it bruised the apex of the right lung and the surrounding parietal pluera, it did not penetrate either of these.

3. To create slight damage to the strap muscles of the neck as well as a slight deviation to the neck and trachea.

4. That they needed to do damage to the base of CE399 in order to demonstrate that the bullet struck the neck/vertebrae in a base first attitude.

6. That they needed to remove a small segment from the base of the bullet which had "squeezed" out the bullet base, and thereafter plant this "core" section of the bullet in the floorboard of the Presidential Limo.

7. That they needed to shoot JFK in the neck with something which made only a 3mm to 5mm wound, which also exactly matchs in size the 4.5mm diameter of the lead core of a Carcano bullet which squeezes out the base when the bullet becomes deformed.

8. That they needed to plant a bullet (CE399) who's physical characteristics were absolutely identical to what happens to a bullet when it has been fired through a one-inch thick oak limb and thereafter recovered in a drum of water.

9. That the "punch" type entry through the shirt of JFK needed to, for all practical purposes, match exactly the configuration of the base of CE399.

Sorry David!

The "Lifton" theory of body snatch and wound alteration is one of the poorest "Bar Bet" jokes which I have ever encountered.

Or, on the other hand, it could be just pure ignorance of the actual facts on the part of someone who lacks the ability to conduct proper research, and thus had to come up with some answer.

Or it just may be more pure "smoke" in which it was generated so that no one is ever likely to believe much of anything ever said again on the subject matter.

Take your pick!

Tom

[Paul Rigby]

The "originator' of the Body Snatch theory appears to have neglected to expound on the fact that Glen Bennet, shortly after the assassination, wrote down that he observed the bullet strike JFK in the back.

Now, as we all know, no back wound was observed at Parkland, and even during the actual autopsy it was not found until later in the course of the autopsy.

Nevertheless, Glenn Bennet, in handwritten notes which were made in route between Dallas and Bethesda, referenced that this wound existed and that the impact was observed on Elm St.

I know! Bennett was a part of the GIANT Master Plan to confuse us, and was merely a "plant" to lead us astray

Unfortunately however, Bennett was never called to testify, and his factual reporting only came to light when much of the SS Agent Testimonies was published..

What a pity Bennett was facing the wrong way...

The "Lifton" theory of body snatch and wound alteration is one of the poorest "Bar Bet" jokes which I have ever encountered.

Or, on the other hand, it could be just pure ignorance of the actual facts on the part of someone who lacks the ability to conduct proper research, and thus had to come up with some answer.

An observation Lifton was capable of making, but one which passed you by, Tom.

[Nick Bartetzko]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hole at the edge of the collar, which went through both the outer coat and the inner liner in an irregular fashion. is the bullet entrance hole for the third/last/final shot which occured down in front of James Altgens at a time when JFK was bent fully forward with his face down and turned to the side.

The bullet penetrated through the slightly raised coat collar on a tangent, exited to strike JFK at the base of the neck in the edge of the hairline, and therafter penetrated through the soft tissue of the neck before striking the skull in the EOP region.

Thanks for your detailed response . It is very much appreciated. I only recall having seen photos of the tie, shirt lower hole in the jacket. Is (was) there a photo of a higher hole in the jacket?

Thanks

Nick

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The "originator' of the Body Snatch theory appears to have neglected to expound on the fact that Glen Bennet, shortly after the assassination, wrote down that he observed the bullet strike JFK in the back.

Now, as we all know, no back wound was observed at Parkland, and even during the actual autopsy it was not found until later in the course of the autopsy.

Nevertheless, Glenn Bennet, in handwritten notes which were made in route between Dallas and Bethesda, referenced that this wound existed and that the impact was observed on Elm St.

I know! Bennett was a part of the GIANT Master Plan to confuse us, and was merely a "plant" to lead us astray

Unfortunately however, Bennett was never called to testify, and his factual reporting only came to light when much of the SS Agent Testimonies was published..

What a pity Bennett was facing the wrong way...

The "Lifton" theory of body snatch and wound alteration is one of the poorest "Bar Bet" jokes which I have ever encountered.

Or, on the other hand, it could be just pure ignorance of the actual facts on the part of someone who lacks the ability to conduct proper research, and thus had to come up with some answer.

An observation Lifton was capable of making, but one which passed you by, Tom.

What a pity Bennett was facing the wrong way

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z206.jpg

That so, huh!

An observation Lifton was capable of making, but one which passed you by, Tom.

Actually! I got a good laugh out of the mere fact that many of the human species would actually believe such garbage.

And yes, I completely allowed the "garbage truck" to pass on by on that one!

I take it that either you are Mr. Lifton in disguise or else are one of his misguided disciples!

Tom

P.S. I would not admit that I fell for it either, had I been so ignorant of the factual evidence to have done so.