On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination.
These were all handguns
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet.
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power
than rifle bullets.
These examples also
don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Same problems as with your theory of an
entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
None of your
arguments ever do.
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
Are we
supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy
that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK
and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald,
would use such weak ammunition
, and then try to frame a guy
who owned a high powered rifle.
Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:08:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 5:28:30?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm. >>>>Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display. >>
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
acknowledge as true.
Exactly
You exactly ignored the fact...
Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.These are apples to oranges comparisons when itNo, you're lying again.
comes to the JFK assassination.
These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by aCan you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
stray bullet.
assertion?
Corbett KNOWS these were handguns...
He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
He speculates a lot.
I know...
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
The most powerful handguns are nowhere near as powerful as even medium powered rifles. The fastest
.44 Magnum bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1380 fps.
So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.So you have nothing to say, right?
Quit trying to reason. You suck at it.
SpeculationA .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
No, that is a fact.
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.
The evidence shows otherwise.
Who has the problem, not me.Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit. >>> Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
So you have no explanation...
Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
"Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
The above statement is not incompatible with an exit wound in the throat.
From the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, pg.7:
"The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
That's huge.
No it's not huge because of one word. ORIGINALLY. Yes they were stumped ...
In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
That's also one thought that cross his mind. Again, a shallow entering bullet is simply incompatible with a bullet fired from
a distance.
Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
Again, that was their early thinking.
Once they removed the organs from the torso they discovered the bullet track
It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
Perry confirmed what they already suspected. That the tracheotomy had been performed over the exit wound which was
right in line with the wound to the trachea.
Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
This idea makes no more sense now than when Lifton proposed it over 30 years ago. Any surgical procedure performed to
remove bullets from the body would have been obvious to the FPP. No such surgery was performed.
Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
Which only indicates that the ambulance didn't immediately proceed to the front entrance after arriving at the rear loading
dock. It would have taken some time to unload the casket .
The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
Plenty of time to remove bullets.
If only you had evidence instead of speculation that any bullets were removed.
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact. >>>
They aren't.
None of your arguments ever do.
They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
Make your argument of post mortem surgery to remove bullets from the body without leaving a trace
to 100 people and 99 would laugh their asses off at you. The other one would be hard of hearing.
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.Ditto above.
You shouldn't ditto stupid statements. That's even dumber than the original statement.
He's talking out of his ass as usual.It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.ROTFLMAO!!!!
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
You argue that:
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
Actually, A & B are the only two logical statements I've ever seen Yellowpanties make, even if he was scoffing at them.
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally. >>>
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
The one you are alleging ...
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.Yep.
Neither of you defined "recently". Old ammunition does not go bad if it is properly stored.
, and then try to frame a guyThey didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
And yet you just can't stop responding, can you ?Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:44:56?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
No, we have an exit at the front of the throatProve it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.See above.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted.
The question is whether the evidence against Oswald is genuine.
There is no evidence that it is not
and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:55:00?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.Just to clarify, that was supposed to say throat. I'm guessing that didn't hit the "a" firmly enough on the keyboard and it came
out throt. Auto correct might have changed it to throw. I think I'll turn that off.
Otherwise, you have done an outstanding job of shooting down just about every one of Yellowpanties inane arguments.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
No, we have an exit at the front of the throatProve it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:57:19?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 4:28:30?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhcDepends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?
It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
More powerful than the .38 Colt but less so than the .357 Magnum. That latter has the same diameter as the .38 Special
which is why a .357 Magnum revolver can fire .38 Special ammo.
The kind of low penetrating bullet Gil and Yellowpanties are talking about...
Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
Ben needs to explain ...
What Giltardo does is divert.
The thread asks the wrong question. The issue is not whether you could have an entry wound
in the throat but no exit?
Of course that's possible with a low powered round. It's not even about whether such a low powered
round could have struck JFK from any appreciable distance, even though that is a highly dubious proposition.
The issue is that if you have an entrance wound with no exit, there should be a bullet in the body.
In JFK's case, there was an entrance
wound in the back and if the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there should be two bullets in the body.
There were none.
Gil suggests, without actually stating, that pre-autopsy surgery was used to remove the bullets from the body.
Never mind that there was no sign of such surgery on the body.
Giltardo doesn't bother to tell us who did they surgery
although he
suggests the clandestine surgery was done from the time the body arrived until the autopsy began at 8:00pm.
Giltardo suggests that was the reason everyone was asked to leave the room.
That would suggest Humes and Boswell were in on the coverup.
If that were true, why bother digging the bullets out? Why not just leave them in and say they didn't find any?
Why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck kept in the dark about an entry wound in the throat.
If they were part of the cover up, why wouldn't they have been
informed of it and that they were supposed to conclude it was an exit
wound?
If it wasn't
Humes, Boswell, and Finck
who dug these alleged bullets out of JFK's neck,
who did the clandestine surgery prior to 8:00pm
and how were they able to get unfettered access to the body?
The simple fact is the autopsy report shoots down most of the popular conspiracy myths and is perfectly consistent with
the SBT.
The conspiracy hobbyists want to cling to their myths so they need and excuse to dismiss the medical evidence.
Over three decades ago, a schmuck named David Lifton dreamed up a bizarre tale of body alteration prior to the autopsy
as their excuse for dismissing the medical evidence. Since no one since has come up with a plausible alternative, the hard
core conspiracy hobbyists continue to cling to this myth..
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:23:11?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
Source ?
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:54:03?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) : >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:22:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:54:03?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ >>
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
I'll let Hank speak for himself. I let you do the same but you are never able to come up with answers or explanations so
once again you divert, in this case to what Hank has said rather than answering for yourself.
You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up
with the premise.
It is your burden to support your premise.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:17:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 9:23:30?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
Acompletely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.So you're suggesting that Wade never framed anyone until the case came to trial ?
I have no idea whether Wade ever deliberately framed anyone prior to the assassination.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter?
Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you. You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process. You start with the
conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them. Anything that
is necessary for those things to be true must have happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened. This is just
the latest example of your methodology. You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound. In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets in the body, you
assume somebody must have removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever happening. I must have
happened or there would still be bullets in the body. You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target and the fact you need not one but two such bullets. You
refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit. Since the
back wound was provably and entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit. You also ignore
the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat. You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was killed
by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his
throat is incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what happened. It doesn't
matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates, you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front, so the
medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.
Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from
multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor
shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from
one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle
and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
anybody noticing?
Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?
How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle?
How did they even know he had a
rifle?
How did they knew where he kept it?
One last question.
Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
lame excuses for not answering.
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.It makes no sense to you, of course.
Nor to any sensible person.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 8:01:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
No I started this thread about what Hanky Panky said.
Don't you read good ? LOL.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 10:56:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
Corbett spanked again by Ben.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
Source ?
WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE
Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
First, look at everything you failed to answer:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 12:21:52?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:46:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:43:20?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:02?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Unlike you they were not simpletons. They could process information.
They had an entry wound in the back, contusions to
the pleura and strap muscles, and damage to the trachea. This trail of damage led to the tracheotomy incision which would
lead a thinking person to suspect the bullet had exited at the place where the tracheotomy incision had been made
a suspicion confirmed in Humes's call to Dr. Perry.
You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance woundSource ?
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf
The connection between the back wound and the throat wound begins with the last sentence on page 4 of the above report
and continues on to page 6 where the damage to the strap muscles and trachea are documented.
It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
Yes, that's what intelligent people do. They don't look for convoluted explanations when a simple one is available.
What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?The agreed with the original report that said a missile entered JFK's back and exited from his throat.
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
How many times...
WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE
So now you want to rely on FBI agents to interpret the medical evidence. You really are a silly little man.
Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Yes it is...
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:49:45?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
Who said that ?
I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
Where do you people get this shit from ?
Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
I never said anything about saving a few dollars. Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?
but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
Just like they had planned to do to Castro.
then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
I never said anything about people being hired. Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
First, look at everything you failed to answer:
I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer. >Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
Since then:
I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
You ran
I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
You ran.
You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
Nobody's buying it here.
Your theory ...
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:28:20?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:23:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
First, look at everything you failed to answer:I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
No...
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 4:43:35?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:58:21 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,063 |