On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 7:28:52?AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.
Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.
That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.
The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.
Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.
Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.
So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.
Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
this is quite imprecise, but may prove surprising:
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.
I enjoyed the give-and-take on this issue by Pat Speer and David Mantik on the edforum, several years ago. I tend to side with you and Mantik, but PS had some points, though I can't recall the details...
dcw
(P.S. Mother of God, is this the end of alt.conspiracy.jfk?!)
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 10:28:52?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.
Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.
That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.
The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.
Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.
Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.
So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.
Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
this is quite imprecise, but may prove surprising:
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?
And what is yours? And why should we accept your nonn-expert opinion over their expert opinion?
Please explain.
Make a valid, reasoned rgument relying on the evidence, and explain why the experts missed everything you think is important.
Or ignore all that, call me names, and change the subject. I have a pretty good idea what route you’ll take, based on your posting history.
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 5:24:02?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?
That the photographs and x-rays matched the autopsy report.
My turn:
What did the Clark Panel "experts" say about whether or not the photographs and x-rays had been tampered with ?
On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 10:28:42?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:interviews with the autopsy witnesses showed they agreed with the Dallas doctors. That wasn't revealed until the mid-90s.
Speaking of leaving things out, and never telling the whole story, why do you not mention that the x-rays and autopsy photos were validated by the HSCA?
Probably because the HSCA lied in its report on the President's head wound, saying the Dallas doctors were wrong about the exit wound at the rear and the autopsy witnesses were correct that the exit wound was in the front of the right side. But
That means that the HSCA interviewed the autopsy witnesses then misrepresented what they said in their report.
In other words, they lied, just like you. >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HSCA-aguilar_groden.mp4
Probably because the HSCA interviewed the 44 witnesses who said they saw a gaping exit hole at the right rear of the President's head.Saundra Spencer to the ARRB, 6/5/97, pgs. 45-46 )
And it ignored them. >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/44-witnesses.jpg
Probably because the HSCA interviewed Naval photographer Robert Knudsen, who told them that he was ordered to take SEVEN sets of autopsy photos.
And it ignored him. >https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666#relPageId=12
Probably because the HSCA interviewed mortician Tom Robinson, who told them that there was a quarter inch entrance hole in the right temple and a large exit wound at the rear of the head.
And it ignored him. >https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1
Probably because the HSCA never interviewed Saundra Spencer, the woman at NPIC who developed the autopsy photos and told the ARRB that the photographic paper used in the "autopsy photos" currently in evidence was not the paper she used. ( Deposition of
Probably because the HSCA never interviewed White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, who told the ARRB in 1997 that he was shown two conflicting sets of autopsy photos, one with an entrance would in the temple and a gaping exit wound at the rear and onewithout.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=753#relPageId=2 >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4
You not only have a problem comprehending what you read, you also rely on the most unreliable sources of information.
You really need to brush up on this topic.
On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 1:22:35?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
And be capable of defending your faith.
Critics can... believers can't.
Hank seems to be stuck in a time warp that ends in 1978 with the HSCA.
He also seems to be completely oblivious to any documents or testimony declassified by the ARRB.
There have been a lot of revelations in the case with the ARRB ( including that the HSCA LIED about the gaping exit wound at the back of the President's head AND the fact that the technician who developed
the autopsy photos said the paper used in the photos currently in evidence is not the paper she used ).
The "more knowledgeable one" seems to be completely unaware of them and unable to discuss them.
SMH
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 113:17:34 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,105 |
