Some Examples of Warren Report Supporters RUNNING from their own evidence/testimony.

In case McAdams don't post this one;

WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL   JAS???

TWO Weeks with No Reply???





"tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NuWKj.5156$3N1.1965@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Jas" <jstell1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:47fbc04c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Groovystuff wrote: "Single-assassin theorists like yourself would have a
>> lot more credibility if they would admit to themselves that Brennan
>> lacked
>> credibility. A case built solely on witnesses like Brennan, Markham,
>> Bledsoe, etc. would have been a sure loser."
>>
>> Yes, but, in the Kennedy assassination we have much more than just
>> witnesses -- a thing that conspiracists want to ignore. So, you want to
>> know what this thing is? Are you ready to jot this down?
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> Evidence.
>>
>> James
>
>
> James;
> Why don't you pick some of that "evidence" and, we'll see if it can
> withstand the "Adversary Procedure">






>> <groovystuff@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4d4fc0f0-bd89-47a2-b4b6-1a7e0ec8d281@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 3, 5:40 pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 4:48 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Having been made familiar with the focus of David Kaiser's book The
>>>> > Road to Dallas, I skipped to the chapter on Three Days in November,
>>>> > to
>>>> > see how Kaiser handles information regarding the actual shooting. I
>>>> > was disappointed. It seems to me that Kaiser was well aware that his
>>>> > writing a pro-conspiracy book could hurt his reputation, and knew
>>>> > that
>>>> > his saying anyone but Oswald pulled the trigger would get him labeled
>>>> > a "kook" by men like McAdams and Bugliosi, and so decided to either
>>>> > PRETEND the evidence suggests Oswald's sole guilt in the actual
>>>> > shooting, or ignore everything that might make him have doubts.
>>>>
>>>> > Chapter 16 starts out badly, with Kaiser telling his readers "Almost
>>>> > half a century later, no one can add very much about what happened on
>>>> > November 22, 1963." I sat next to Kaiser at a Lancer dinner in 2005.
>>>> > We talked. I told him about my research. He said he had to leave
>>>> > before my presentation. I suggested he check it out online. He either
>>>> > never looked at my online presentations, or chose to dismiss them,
>>>> > neither of which reflects well on his dedication to the truth, in my
>>>> > mind. But that's just pride. I can't reject Kaiser's work just
>>>> > because
>>>> > he ignores mine.
>>>>
>>>> > But it's not just mine. A few paragraphs later, when describing
>>>> > Oswald's movements on 11-22, he writes that Oswald carried a
>>>> > "two-foot
>>>> > long package" that "evidently contained his rifle". Evidently? I fail
>>>> > to see why this is so evident, and am concerned that Kaiser fails to
>>>> > tell his readers that the rifle was three-feet long. He then
>>>> > describes
>>>> > Oswald's movements in the TSBD, and writes "One or two witnesses
>>>> > waiting for the President observed him standing near the window
>>>> > before
>>>> > the Presidential motorcade came down Houston Street" (and by window,
>>>> > he means the sniper's nest window). Oh, really? Which one or two? Has
>>>> > Howard Brennan split in half and suddenly become so credible we can
>>>> > cite his statements without acknowledging he refused to ID Oswald
>>>> > when
>>>> > given a chance?
>>>>
>>>> > Kaiser then goes on to discuss Kennedy's wounds, and states that the
>>>> > HSCA "appointed a panel of independent experts to use all available
>>>> > photographic evidence to find out if the back and neck wounds in
>>>> > President Kennedy and the back, wrist, and thigh wounds in Governor
>>>> > Connally were in fact lined up at a critical moment and thus could
>>>> > indeed have been caused by one bullet. At frame 190 of the Zapruder
>>>> > film...they did indeed discover a straight bullet path whose
>>>> > trajectory led back to the corner of the sixth floor window of the
>>>> > TSBD." This makes me scratch my head. The medical panel passed no
>>>> > judgment on the time Kennedy was shot, and seemed to lean to
>>>> > Kennedy's
>>>> > having been hit when he was behind the sign, when he MAY have been
>>>> > leaning as far forward as they believed he would have to have been.
>>>> > The photographic panel felt he'd been hit by frame 207. The
>>>> > trajectory
>>>> > panel, on the other hand, which was basically one man, a Johnny-come-
>>>> > lately to the investigation named Thomas Canning, was told, based in
>>>> > part on an analysis of the blurs in the Z-film, to research frame 190
>>>> > and see IF Kennedy and Connally were in alignment at that point.
>>>> > Canning was even allowed to move their wounds around to make the
>>>> > trajectory work. Implying that all these experts got together and
>>>> > figured out the exact moment that the actual wound locations were in
>>>> > alignment is not only wrong, but deceptive. I'm curious as to how
>>>> > Kaiser came by this.
>>>>
>>>> > A bit later, he makes an even bigger mistake. He actually ignores the
>>>> > challenges to Vincent Guinn's assertion that the Connally wrist
>>>> > fragments came
>>>> > from the magic bullet by citing a recent study by "Dr.s L.M.
>>>> > Sturdivan
>>>> > and Kenneth Rahn." What? First of all, Sturdivan isn't a doctor, last
>>>> > I checked, and second of all, what about the other studies performed
>>>> > recently, such as the one published in the Journal of Forensic
>>>> > Science, demonstrating that Guinn's testimony was seriously flawed?
>>>> > To
>>>> > use Guinn as support for the "magic bullet" theory, at this late
>>>> > date,
>>>> > without noting all the recent studies indicating he'd been high on
>>>> > his
>>>> > own supply, is, to me, a serious oversight.
>>>>
>>>> > On the next page, he pulls another major gaffe, as far as I'm
>>>> > concerned. On the HSCA medical panel's acceptance that the bullet
>>>> > entered near the cowlick on the back of Kennedy's skull, and not near
>>>> > the EOP, as described at autopsy, he writes "They came to this
>>>> > conclusion partly because careful examination of the brain x-rays
>>>> > showed no evidence of a wound in the lower area." First of all, there
>>>> > were no "brain x-rays" per se. It was the brain photographs that
>>>> > convinced them. Second of all, it was not so much that the brain
>>>> > photos convinced them there'd been no wound in the lower area, but
>>>> > that the brain photographs convinced them there'd been no wound in
>>>> > the
>>>> > lower area as described in the autopsy report. They described the
>>>> > lower area as "virtually intact...It certainly does not demonstrate
>>>> > the
>>>> > degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears
>>>> > subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be
>>>> > expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as
>>>> > described in the autopsy report." While this may sound like nit-
>>>> > picking I believe this is important, in that it demonstrates the
>>>> > panel
>>>> > was aware of some damage, and that this damage may very well have
>>>> > been
>>>> > caused by something other than a high-speed military bullet tearing
>>>> > through Kennedy's skull.
>>>>
>>>> > In any event, Kaiser compounds this error by noting, just afterwards,
>>>> > that "Dr. Humes, one of the original autopsy surgeons, appeared
>>>> > before
>>>> > the HSCA and agreed that his team had misidentified the location of
>>>> > the wound in the original report" and leaving it at that. To me, this
>>>> > is just irresponsible. One hour's research would have shown him that
>>>> > Humes later denied ever agreeing to such a thing, that the other two
>>>> > doctors never changed their minds about the wound location, that the
>>>> > HSCA's counsel Gary Cornwell admitted pressuring Humes to change his
>>>> > mind, and had threatened to treat him as a hostile witness if he did
>>>> > not testify that he'd changed his mind, etc. Citing Humes' testimony
>>>> > as if it should be taken at face value is just bad bad history.
>>>>
>>>> > If one were to de-construct Kaiser's book, one might conclude that
>>>> > Kaiser thinks of himself as a professional historian, an "expert,"
>>>> > and
>>>> > that, as such, it is in his interest to promote the views and
>>>> > conclusions of other experts. While this is dime-store psychology at
>>>> > a
>>>> > discount, it is as good an explanation for Kaiser's near-blind
>>>> > acceptance of the work done by HSCA "experts" as any. But I'm not
>>>> > ready to do that. I'm hoping he just made a mistake, and failed to
>>>> > adequately question the work of the HSCA's experts. If so, might I
>>>> > suggest he do some catching up? My work is online and for free.
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.patspeer.com/www.patspeer.com-PatSpeer.com
>>>>
>>>> Pat , when you get a fact wrong , especially one so important as
>>>> Brennan
>>>> don't be surprised if others ignore your work .
>>>>
>>>> You stated that :  " he (Brennan) refused to ID Oswald when given a
>>>> chance? "
>>>>
>>>> This is not true . Howard Brennan "Declined" to ID Oswald . Look up the
>>>> terms and there's a big difference . He "Declined" because like most
>>>> people that day , including LBJ , he didn't know if accomplices were
>>>> lurking that might place himself or his family in danger .
>>>>
>>>> The following affidavit was executed by Howard Leslie Brennan on May 7,
>>>> 1964
>>>>
>>>> PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
>>>> AFFIDAVIT ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
>>>> STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:
>>>>
>>>> I, Howard Leslie Brennan, being first duly sworn, do upon oath depose
>>>> and state:
>>>>
>>>> On or about March 24, 1964, I testified in Washington, D.C., before the
>>>> President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. In
>>>> that
>>>> connection I testified as to the reasons why I declined on November 22,
>>>> 1963, to give, positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man
>>>> I
>>>> saw firing a rifle fro the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the
>>>> Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963.
>>>>
>>>> Included in these reasons at pages 3629 and 3630 of Volume 28 of the
>>>> transcript of the Commission proceedings are the following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> "And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself,
>>>> might
>>>> in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he
>>>> wasn't
>>>> going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately,
>>>> and
>>>> I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted
>>>> me,
>>>> my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they
>>>> didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose."
>>>> "...
>>>>
>>>> "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the
>>>> man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and
>>>> the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all
>>>> that.
>>>> But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything
>>>> could
>>>> happen to me or my family."
>>>>
>>>> I have also been advised that on page 3595 of Volume 28 of the
>>>> transcript
>>>> the Commission proceedings, the following appears
>>>>
>>>> "Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family, an
>>>> yourself?
>>>> "Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
>>>> Communist activity, and I felt like there had been more than one eye
>>>> witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye witness,
>>>> my family or I, either one, might not be safe."
>>>> "Mr. BRENNAN: I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
>>>> Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one
>>>> eye witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye
>>>> witness. my family or I either one, might nor be safe."
>>>>
>>>> Signed the 7th day of May 1964.
>>>> (S) Howard Leslie Brennan.
>>>>
>>>> end ..................
>>>>
>>>> tl
>>>
>>> draftsman, as usual, you''re wrong. Brennan refused to ID Oswald. His
>>> failure to ID Oswald when given the chance resulted in NO record being
>>> created of his ever seeing Oswald in a lineup. It would, therefore, have
>>> been impossible for him to have gone back later and say that he saw
>>> Oswald. He had one shot, and REFUSED to do it. Everything he said
>>> afterwards was tainted by this failure.  He wanted to believe it was
>>> Oswald, enjoyed the notoriety he got from saying it was Oswald, etc.
>>>
>>> Over time he became so enamored with his potential role in history that
>>> he
>>> changed his story to fit the official story. He heard two shots.  By the
>>> end it was three. He saw someone who could have been Oswald. It later
>>> became Oswald. He saw one shot fired. It later became he saw two shots
>>> fired and two shots strike.  He has no more credibility than Jean Hill,
>>> etc. Single-assassin theorists like yourself would have a lot more
>>> credibility if they would admit to themselves that Brennan lacked
>>> credibility. A case built solely on witnesses like Brennan, Markham,
>>> Bledsoe, etc. would have been a sure loser.
>>>
>>
>>
>

In case McAdams don't post this one.

Tell us how cortisone can effect the autopsy face sheet?
Tell us how cortisone can effect S S Agent Glen Bennett's testimony?
Tell us how cortisone can effect Dr. George Burkley?
Tell us how cortisone can effect The Horne Report?


"Jas" <jstell1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:480ff183@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Cliff, the problem with your bunched jacket theory/fact -- whatever you
> want to call it -- is you're not taking into consideration the way a
> jacket is made, and how it hangs over the shoulder structure of the upper
> body.
>
> There's extra material and fullness in the upper shoulder/back area to
> compensate for the natural outward curve of the upper spine. Look at an
> X-ray of the human spine from the perpendicular. You'll see this outward
> curve plain as day.
>
> Now, factor in that we know Kennedy suffered from Addison's disease, and
> the known fact that he took large doses of cortisone to treat his
> Addison's disease, and the known fact that cortisone causes a condition
> called Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome -- a further curvation of the upper
> back -- and what you have is the reason for the misalignment of the bullet
> holes in his shirt and jacket, and the actual bullet hole in his upper
> back.
>
> Then, factor in that while sitting in the limo Kennedy is not completely
> upright -- his back is not a flat, completely vertical line, and that his
> upper chest and neck area is slumped forward somewhat (another physical
> characteristic of Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome) and you can see that the
> holes in his upper back and lower throat can and do line up correctly for
> the single bullet.
>
> Google Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome. You'll see what I mean.
>
> James
>
>
> "Cliff" <nksy@sfo.com> wrote in message
> news:2ec46176-9b4a-4656-b163-7136217096ad@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 22, 10:08 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The bunch theory is obviously a bunch of !@#$%*&^.
>>>
>>> CJ
>>
>>
>> My favorite in all of this is Chad Zimmerman offering me
>> 10 grand cash if I could prove the accuracy of his
>> Unsolved History segment.
>>
>> I stipulated to everything he claimed on that show -- except
>> for the conclusion, which went against everything Chad had
>> written about bunch theory on his website and here at aajfk.
>>
>> That Discovery Channel segment destroyed bunch theory.
>>
>> Hilarious!
>>
>
>

In case McAdams don't post this one.

TOP POST;

Timmy keeps Ignoring Duran's Description of the Oswald she saw in Mexico
City;

SEE>>>   http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm

SEE>>>   http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm


Timmy keeps Ignoring that the HSCA BELIEVED Sylvia Odio.
   HSCA Report page 137

That's why Timmy won't touch the issues of "Tainted" evidence/testimony>>>

http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm

http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm




"Peter Fokes" <jpfCT@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:v4a91417a7tj1u55vhkrf5833e96olfe40@4ax.com...
> On 24 Apr 2008 01:06:56 -0400, timstter@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>TOP POST
>>
>>Hi tomnln,
>>
>>Say, why do you continue to post that link to your Mexico City page on
>>which you claim that Mrs Duran *then and only then identified Oswald as
>>the man she met* AFTER some CIA tapes were sent to the Dallas FBI on 25
>>November, 1963?
>>
>>As was pointed out to you months ago, tomnln, that is completely wrong. CE
>>2121 shows that Duran identified Oswald the evening of 23 November, 1963,
>>as being the man she met in a signed statement.
>
> Duran's role in this whole affair must be viewed with suspicion.
>
> Was she a Marxist? Was she a double agent? Who was her master?
>
>
> PF
>
>
>>
>>CE 2121, tomnln. Evidence/testimony, tomnln. Evidence/testimony that you
>>continue to ignore, tomnln.
>>
>>Now why is that?
>>
>>Concerned Regards,
>>
>>Tim Brennan
>>Sydney, Australia
>>*Newsgroup Commentator*
>>
>>On Apr 21, 2:45 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>>>
>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>>>
>>> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:fc2be7b1-c89c-4cee-aced-c70f97d8b6ac@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>> MIDDLE POST
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On Apr 19, 1:58 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 18 Apr 2008 00:07:29 -0400, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > >TOP POST
>>>
>>> > >By golly, Tommy, I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Mrs
>>> > >Duran,
>>> > >throughout her HSCA testimony, says that Oswald is the man she met.
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately Duran is an unreliable witness. She was physically
>>> > tortured. Recall also that her superior Aczue saw this same man and
>>> > testified:
>>>
>>> Hmm, no, you're not following the sequence of events, as previously
>>> pointed out to you, in arriving at your conclusion that she is *an
>>> unreliable witness*.
>>>
>>> Duran thought the evening of 22 November that Oswald was the person she
>>> had met on 27 September and told her husband that.
>>>
>>> The morning of 23 November she saw Oswald's photo in the newspaper El
>>> Dia
>>> and was certain it was him. She then went into the Consulate and found
>>> his
>>> application, which had a photo of the same man, Oswald, on it. She then
>>> brought this file to the attention of her superiors at the Consulate.
>>>
>>> It was later in the day that she was arrested, AFTER she had already
>>> identified Oswald as being the man she met to the Consulate staff.
>>>
>>> At 6pm on 23 November she signed a statement affirming that Oswald was
>>> the
>>> man she had met and was described as being *completely co- operative*.
>>> She
>>> had nothing to hide.
>>>
>>> Duran was back at work at the Consulate on 25 November. She was arrested
>>> the second time AFTER Oswald's death and the interrogation then became
>>> more hostile.
>>>
>>> She had already TWICE identified Oswald as the man she met before she
>>> was
>>> *tortured*, a very emotive claim made by you.
>>>
>>> > Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the best of
>>> > your memory who visited the consulate?
>>> > Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond.
>>>
>>> My information is that, for a person of Latin descent to describe a
>>> white
>>> American like Oswald as *blond* was not an uncommon event. It would be a
>>> mistake to construe that that meant he looked like a Scandinavian.
>>>
>>> > >She also says in her HSCA testimony that *everything in her (WC)
>>> > >statement
>>> > >is the truth*, ie the document she signed on 23 November, 1963,
>>> > >stating
>>> > >that Oswald was the person she met.
>>>
>>> > Well, he might have said his name was OSWALD, so she could truthfully
>>> > say she met Oswald. But, of course, that is not evidence she did meet
>>> > our Oswald. Her superior said the man who came to the consulate was
>>> > not OUR Oswald. He was not tortured.
>>>
>>> You ignore all the details on his application that match known facts and
>>> support her account. It's his photo, his address, his signature, his
>>> passport number and details his recent FPCC activities in New Orleans,
>>> activities that are a matter of public record.
>>>
>>> > >Her story checks out against the records held in the Embassy in 1963
>>> > >and
>>> > >a
>>> > >second copy, date stamped 10 October, 1963, that made it all the way
>>> > >to
>>> > >Cuba and wasn't available until 1978.
>>>
>>> > Azcue on photos on visas:
>>>
>>> > Senor AZCUE. Truly, this photograph is one that I saw for the first
>>> > time when the honorable U.S. committee members came to Cuba in April
>>> > of this year, and I was surprised that I believe that it was not the
>>> > same person. Fifteen years had gone by so it is very difficult for me
>>> > to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical form. But my
>>> > belief is that this gentleman was not, is not, the person or the
>>> > individual who went to the consulate.
>>>
>>> Well Mirabel, whose signature appears on one of the versions of the visa
>>> application, doesn't agree. That is Duran, Mirabel and the available
>>> material evidence, in the form of the visa application and Oswald's
>>> later
>>> letter, against Azcue's recall. Your argument needs something more to
>>> back
>>> it up, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> > >She says in her WC statement that she gave her name and phone number
>>> > >to
>>> > >Oswald when she met him and her name and phone number are written in
>>> > >Oswald's notebook, in Oswald's handwriting.
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately, this is not evidence our Oswald visited the Cuban
>>> > Consulate.
>>>
>>> It's more physical evidence that he was there. You, on the other hand,
>>> appear to have nothing more than witness recall to support your
>>> argument.
>>> Your argument is weak.
>>>
>>> > >She picks out Oswald's photo from the HSCA photo book as being the
>>> > >man
>>> > >she
>>> > >met.
>>>
>>> > Too bad she cannot be considered a reliable witness.
>>>
>>> That's your opinion. Physical evidence supports her, including Oswald's
>>> own handwritten and typewritten words.
>>>
>>> You should start producing some physical evidence that it WASN'T Oswald
>>> to
>>> support your position, Peter.
>>>
>>> Accepting tomnln's *interpretations* of what she said to the HSCA is not
>>> a
>>> very wise idea if you're trying to prove Oswald wasn't the man she met.
>>> The HSCA certainly concluded that that was what she meant. She met
>>> Oswald.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tim Brennan
>>> Sydney, Australia
>>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>

In case McAdams don't post this one.

Tell us how cortisone can effect the autopsy face sheet?
Tell us how cortisone can effect S S Agent Glen Bennett's testimony?
Tell us how cortisone can effect Dr. George Burkley?
Tell us how cortisone can effect The Horne Report?


"Jas" <jstell1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:480ff183@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Cliff, the problem with your bunched jacket theory/fact -- whatever you
> want to call it -- is you're not taking into consideration the way a
> jacket is made, and how it hangs over the shoulder structure of the upper
> body.
>
> There's extra material and fullness in the upper shoulder/back area to
> compensate for the natural outward curve of the upper spine. Look at an
> X-ray of the human spine from the perpendicular. You'll see this outward
> curve plain as day.
>
> Now, factor in that we know Kennedy suffered from Addison's disease, and
> the known fact that he took large doses of cortisone to treat his
> Addison's disease, and the known fact that cortisone causes a condition
> called Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome -- a further curvation of the upper
> back -- and what you have is the reason for the misalignment of the bullet
> holes in his shirt and jacket, and the actual bullet hole in his upper
> back.
>
> Then, factor in that while sitting in the limo Kennedy is not completely
> upright -- his back is not a flat, completely vertical line, and that his
> upper chest and neck area is slumped forward somewhat (another physical
> characteristic of Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome) and you can see that the
> holes in his upper back and lower throat can and do line up correctly for
> the single bullet.
>
> Google Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome. You'll see what I mean.
>
> James
>
>
> "Cliff" <nksy@sfo.com> wrote in message
> news:2ec46176-9b4a-4656-b163-7136217096ad@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 22, 10:08 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The bunch theory is obviously a bunch of !@#$%*&^.
>>>
>>> CJ
>>
>>
>> My favorite in all of this is Chad Zimmerman offering me
>> 10 grand cash if I could prove the accuracy of his
>> Unsolved History segment.
>>
>> I stipulated to everything he claimed on that show -- except
>> for the conclusion, which went against everything Chad had
>> written about bunch theory on his website and here at aajfk.
>>
>> That Discovery Channel segment destroyed bunch theory.
>>
>> Hilarious!
>>
>
>

I sent this on April 9th and, STILL no reply from Jas ! ! !



"tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NuWKj.5156$3N1.1965@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Jas" <jstell1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:47fbc04c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Groovystuff wrote: "Single-assassin theorists like yourself would have a
>> lot more credibility if they would admit to themselves that Brennan
>> lacked credibility. A case built solely on witnesses like Brennan,
>> Markham, Bledsoe, etc. would have been a sure loser."
>>
>> Yes, but, in the Kennedy assassination we have much more than just
>> witnesses -- a thing that conspiracists want to ignore. So, you want to
>> know what this thing is? Are you ready to jot this down?
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> Evidence.
>>
>> James
>
>
> James;
> Why don't you pick some of that "evidence" and, we'll see if it can
> withstand the "Adversary Procedure">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> <groovystuff@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4d4fc0f0-bd89-47a2-b4b6-1a7e0ec8d281@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 3, 5:40 pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 4:48 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Having been made familiar with the focus of David Kaiser's book The
>>>> > Road to Dallas, I skipped to the chapter on Three Days in November,
>>>> > to
>>>> > see how Kaiser handles information regarding the actual shooting. I
>>>> > was disappointed. It seems to me that Kaiser was well aware that his
>>>> > writing a pro-conspiracy book could hurt his reputation, and knew
>>>> > that
>>>> > his saying anyone but Oswald pulled the trigger would get him labeled
>>>> > a "kook" by men like McAdams and Bugliosi, and so decided to either
>>>> > PRETEND the evidence suggests Oswald's sole guilt in the actual
>>>> > shooting, or ignore everything that might make him have doubts.
>>>>
>>>> > Chapter 16 starts out badly, with Kaiser telling his readers "Almost
>>>> > half a century later, no one can add very much about what happened on
>>>> > November 22, 1963." I sat next to Kaiser at a Lancer dinner in 2005.
>>>> > We talked. I told him about my research. He said he had to leave
>>>> > before my presentation. I suggested he check it out online. He either
>>>> > never looked at my online presentations, or chose to dismiss them,
>>>> > neither of which reflects well on his dedication to the truth, in my
>>>> > mind. But that's just pride. I can't reject Kaiser's work just
>>>> > because
>>>> > he ignores mine.
>>>>
>>>> > But it's not just mine. A few paragraphs later, when describing
>>>> > Oswald's movements on 11-22, he writes that Oswald carried a
>>>> > "two-foot
>>>> > long package" that "evidently contained his rifle". Evidently? I fail
>>>> > to see why this is so evident, and am concerned that Kaiser fails to
>>>> > tell his readers that the rifle was three-feet long. He then
>>>> > describes
>>>> > Oswald's movements in the TSBD, and writes "One or two witnesses
>>>> > waiting for the President observed him standing near the window
>>>> > before
>>>> > the Presidential motorcade came down Houston Street" (and by window,
>>>> > he means the sniper's nest window). Oh, really? Which one or two? Has
>>>> > Howard Brennan split in half and suddenly become so credible we can
>>>> > cite his statements without acknowledging he refused to ID Oswald
>>>> > when
>>>> > given a chance?
>>>>
>>>> > Kaiser then goes on to discuss Kennedy's wounds, and states that the
>>>> > HSCA "appointed a panel of independent experts to use all available
>>>> > photographic evidence to find out if the back and neck wounds in
>>>> > President Kennedy and the back, wrist, and thigh wounds in Governor
>>>> > Connally were in fact lined up at a critical moment and thus could
>>>> > indeed have been caused by one bullet. At frame 190 of the Zapruder
>>>> > film...they did indeed discover a straight bullet path whose
>>>> > trajectory led back to the corner of the sixth floor window of the
>>>> > TSBD." This makes me scratch my head. The medical panel passed no
>>>> > judgment on the time Kennedy was shot, and seemed to lean to
>>>> > Kennedy's
>>>> > having been hit when he was behind the sign, when he MAY have been
>>>> > leaning as far forward as they believed he would have to have been.
>>>> > The photographic panel felt he'd been hit by frame 207. The
>>>> > trajectory
>>>> > panel, on the other hand, which was basically one man, a Johnny-come-
>>>> > lately to the investigation named Thomas Canning, was told, based in
>>>> > part on an analysis of the blurs in the Z-film, to research frame 190
>>>> > and see IF Kennedy and Connally were in alignment at that point.
>>>> > Canning was even allowed to move their wounds around to make the
>>>> > trajectory work. Implying that all these experts got together and
>>>> > figured out the exact moment that the actual wound locations were in
>>>> > alignment is not only wrong, but deceptive. I'm curious as to how
>>>> > Kaiser came by this.
>>>>
>>>> > A bit later, he makes an even bigger mistake. He actually ignores the
>>>> > challenges to Vincent Guinn's assertion that the Connally wrist
>>>> > fragments came
>>>> > from the magic bullet by citing a recent study by "Dr.s L.M.
>>>> > Sturdivan
>>>> > and Kenneth Rahn." What? First of all, Sturdivan isn't a doctor, last
>>>> > I checked, and second of all, what about the other studies performed
>>>> > recently, such as the one published in the Journal of Forensic
>>>> > Science, demonstrating that Guinn's testimony was seriously flawed?
>>>> > To
>>>> > use Guinn as support for the "magic bullet" theory, at this late
>>>> > date,
>>>> > without noting all the recent studies indicating he'd been high on
>>>> > his
>>>> > own supply, is, to me, a serious oversight.
>>>>
>>>> > On the next page, he pulls another major gaffe, as far as I'm
>>>> > concerned. On the HSCA medical panel's acceptance that the bullet
>>>> > entered near the cowlick on the back of Kennedy's skull, and not near
>>>> > the EOP, as described at autopsy, he writes "They came to this
>>>> > conclusion partly because careful examination of the brain x-rays
>>>> > showed no evidence of a wound in the lower area." First of all, there
>>>> > were no "brain x-rays" per se. It was the brain photographs that
>>>> > convinced them. Second of all, it was not so much that the brain
>>>> > photos convinced them there'd been no wound in the lower area, but
>>>> > that the brain photographs convinced them there'd been no wound in
>>>> > the
>>>> > lower area as described in the autopsy report. They described the
>>>> > lower area as "virtually intact...It certainly does not demonstrate
>>>> > the
>>>> > degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears
>>>> > subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be
>>>> > expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as
>>>> > described in the autopsy report." While this may sound like nit-
>>>> > picking I believe this is important, in that it demonstrates the
>>>> > panel
>>>> > was aware of some damage, and that this damage may very well have
>>>> > been
>>>> > caused by something other than a high-speed military bullet tearing
>>>> > through Kennedy's skull.
>>>>
>>>> > In any event, Kaiser compounds this error by noting, just afterwards,
>>>> > that "Dr. Humes, one of the original autopsy surgeons, appeared
>>>> > before
>>>> > the HSCA and agreed that his team had misidentified the location of
>>>> > the wound in the original report" and leaving it at that. To me, this
>>>> > is just irresponsible. One hour's research would have shown him that
>>>> > Humes later denied ever agreeing to such a thing, that the other two
>>>> > doctors never changed their minds about the wound location, that the
>>>> > HSCA's counsel Gary Cornwell admitted pressuring Humes to change his
>>>> > mind, and had threatened to treat him as a hostile witness if he did
>>>> > not testify that he'd changed his mind, etc. Citing Humes' testimony
>>>> > as if it should be taken at face value is just bad bad history.
>>>>
>>>> > If one were to de-construct Kaiser's book, one might conclude that
>>>> > Kaiser thinks of himself as a professional historian, an "expert,"
>>>> > and
>>>> > that, as such, it is in his interest to promote the views and
>>>> > conclusions of other experts. While this is dime-store psychology at
>>>> > a
>>>> > discount, it is as good an explanation for Kaiser's near-blind
>>>> > acceptance of the work done by HSCA "experts" as any. But I'm not
>>>> > ready to do that. I'm hoping he just made a mistake, and failed to
>>>> > adequately question the work of the HSCA's experts. If so, might I
>>>> > suggest he do some catching up? My work is online and for free.
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.patspeer.com/www.patspeer.com-PatSpeer.com
>>>>
>>>> Pat , when you get a fact wrong , especially one so important as
>>>> Brennan
>>>> don't be surprised if others ignore your work .
>>>>
>>>> You stated that :  " he (Brennan) refused to ID Oswald when given a
>>>> chance? "
>>>>
>>>> This is not true . Howard Brennan "Declined" to ID Oswald . Look up the
>>>> terms and there's a big difference . He "Declined" because like most
>>>> people that day , including LBJ , he didn't know if accomplices were
>>>> lurking that might place himself or his family in danger .
>>>>
>>>> The following affidavit was executed by Howard Leslie Brennan on May 7,
>>>> 1964
>>>>
>>>> PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
>>>> AFFIDAVIT ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
>>>> STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:
>>>>
>>>> I, Howard Leslie Brennan, being first duly sworn, do upon oath depose
>>>> and state:
>>>>
>>>> On or about March 24, 1964, I testified in Washington, D.C., before the
>>>> President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. In
>>>> that
>>>> connection I testified as to the reasons why I declined on November 22,
>>>> 1963, to give, positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man
>>>> I
>>>> saw firing a rifle fro the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the
>>>> Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963.
>>>>
>>>> Included in these reasons at pages 3629 and 3630 of Volume 28 of the
>>>> transcript of the Commission proceedings are the following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> "And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself,
>>>> might
>>>> in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he
>>>> wasn't
>>>> going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately,
>>>> and
>>>> I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted
>>>> me,
>>>> my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they
>>>> didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose."
>>>> "...
>>>>
>>>> "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the
>>>> man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and
>>>> the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all
>>>> that.
>>>> But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything
>>>> could
>>>> happen to me or my family."
>>>>
>>>> I have also been advised that on page 3595 of Volume 28 of the
>>>> transcript
>>>> the Commission proceedings, the following appears
>>>>
>>>> "Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family, an
>>>> yourself?
>>>> "Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
>>>> Communist activity, and I felt like there had been more than one eye
>>>> witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye witness,
>>>> my family or I, either one, might not be safe."
>>>> "Mr. BRENNAN: I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
>>>> Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one
>>>> eye witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye
>>>> witness. my family or I either one, might nor be safe."
>>>>
>>>> Signed the 7th day of May 1964.
>>>> (S) Howard Leslie Brennan.
>>>>
>>>> end ..................
>>>>
>>>> tl
>>>
>>> draftsman, as usual, you''re wrong. Brennan refused to ID Oswald. His
>>> failure to ID Oswald when given the chance resulted in NO record being
>>> created of his ever seeing Oswald in a lineup. It would, therefore, have
>>> been impossible for him to have gone back later and say that he saw
>>> Oswald. He had one shot, and REFUSED to do it. Everything he said
>>> afterwards was tainted by this failure.  He wanted to believe it was
>>> Oswald, enjoyed the notoriety he got from saying it was Oswald, etc.
>>>
>>> Over time he became so enamored with his potential role in history that
>>> he
>>> changed his story to fit the official story. He heard two shots.  By the
>>> end it was three. He saw someone who could have been Oswald. It later
>>> became Oswald. He saw one shot fired. It later became he saw two shots
>>> fired and two shots strike.  He has no more credibility than Jean Hill,
>>> etc. Single-assassin theorists like yourself would have a lot more
>>> credibility if they would admit to themselves that Brennan lacked
>>> credibility. A case built solely on witnesses like Brennan, Markham,
>>> Bledsoe, etc. would have been a sure loser.
>>>
>>
>>
>

WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL   JAS???

TWO Weeks with No Reply???





"tomnln" <tomnln@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NuWKj.5156$3N1.1965@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "Jas" <jstell1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:47fbc04c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Groovystuff wrote: "Single-assassin theorists like yourself would have a
>> lot more credibility if they would admit to themselves that Brennan
>> lacked credibility. A case built solely on witnesses like Brennan,
>> Markham, Bledsoe, etc. would have been a sure loser."
>>
>> Yes, but, in the Kennedy assassination we have much more than just
>> witnesses -- a thing that conspiracists want to ignore. So, you want to
>> know what this thing is? Are you ready to jot this down?
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> Evidence.
>>
>> James
>
>
> James;
> Why don't you pick some of that "evidence" and, we'll see if it can
> withstand the "Adversary Procedure">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> <groovystuff@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4d4fc0f0-bd89-47a2-b4b6-1a7e0ec8d281@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 3, 5:40 pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 4:48 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Having been made familiar with the focus of David Kaiser's book The
>>>> > Road to Dallas, I skipped to the chapter on Three Days in November,
>>>> > to
>>>> > see how Kaiser handles information regarding the actual shooting. I
>>>> > was disappointed. It seems to me that Kaiser was well aware that his
>>>> > writing a pro-conspiracy book could hurt his reputation, and knew
>>>> > that
>>>> > his saying anyone but Oswald pulled the trigger would get him labeled
>>>> > a "kook" by men like McAdams and Bugliosi, and so decided to either
>>>> > PRETEND the evidence suggests Oswald's sole guilt in the actual
>>>> > shooting, or ignore everything that might make him have doubts.
>>>>
>>>> > Chapter 16 starts out badly, with Kaiser telling his readers "Almost
>>>> > half a century later, no one can add very much about what happened on
>>>> > November 22, 1963." I sat next to Kaiser at a Lancer dinner in 2005.
>>>> > We talked. I told him about my research. He said he had to leave
>>>> > before my presentation. I suggested he check it out online. He either
>>>> > never looked at my online presentations, or chose to dismiss them,
>>>> > neither of which reflects well on his dedication to the truth, in my
>>>> > mind. But that's just pride. I can't reject Kaiser's work just
>>>> > because
>>>> > he ignores mine.
>>>>
>>>> > But it's not just mine. A few paragraphs later, when describing
>>>> > Oswald's movements on 11-22, he writes that Oswald carried a
>>>> > "two-foot
>>>> > long package" that "evidently contained his rifle". Evidently? I fail
>>>> > to see why this is so evident, and am concerned that Kaiser fails to
>>>> > tell his readers that the rifle was three-feet long. He then
>>>> > describes
>>>> > Oswald's movements in the TSBD, and writes "One or two witnesses
>>>> > waiting for the President observed him standing near the window
>>>> > before
>>>> > the Presidential motorcade came down Houston Street" (and by window,
>>>> > he means the sniper's nest window). Oh, really? Which one or two? Has
>>>> > Howard Brennan split in half and suddenly become so credible we can
>>>> > cite his statements without acknowledging he refused to ID Oswald
>>>> > when
>>>> > given a chance?
>>>>
>>>> > Kaiser then goes on to discuss Kennedy's wounds, and states that the
>>>> > HSCA "appointed a panel of independent experts to use all available
>>>> > photographic evidence to find out if the back and neck wounds in
>>>> > President Kennedy and the back, wrist, and thigh wounds in Governor
>>>> > Connally were in fact lined up at a critical moment and thus could
>>>> > indeed have been caused by one bullet. At frame 190 of the Zapruder
>>>> > film...they did indeed discover a straight bullet path whose
>>>> > trajectory led back to the corner of the sixth floor window of the
>>>> > TSBD." This makes me scratch my head. The medical panel passed no
>>>> > judgment on the time Kennedy was shot, and seemed to lean to
>>>> > Kennedy's
>>>> > having been hit when he was behind the sign, when he MAY have been
>>>> > leaning as far forward as they believed he would have to have been.
>>>> > The photographic panel felt he'd been hit by frame 207. The
>>>> > trajectory
>>>> > panel, on the other hand, which was basically one man, a Johnny-come-
>>>> > lately to the investigation named Thomas Canning, was told, based in
>>>> > part on an analysis of the blurs in the Z-film, to research frame 190
>>>> > and see IF Kennedy and Connally were in alignment at that point.
>>>> > Canning was even allowed to move their wounds around to make the
>>>> > trajectory work. Implying that all these experts got together and
>>>> > figured out the exact moment that the actual wound locations were in
>>>> > alignment is not only wrong, but deceptive. I'm curious as to how
>>>> > Kaiser came by this.
>>>>
>>>> > A bit later, he makes an even bigger mistake. He actually ignores the
>>>> > challenges to Vincent Guinn's assertion that the Connally wrist
>>>> > fragments came
>>>> > from the magic bullet by citing a recent study by "Dr.s L.M.
>>>> > Sturdivan
>>>> > and Kenneth Rahn." What? First of all, Sturdivan isn't a doctor, last
>>>> > I checked, and second of all, what about the other studies performed
>>>> > recently, such as the one published in the Journal of Forensic
>>>> > Science, demonstrating that Guinn's testimony was seriously flawed?
>>>> > To
>>>> > use Guinn as support for the "magic bullet" theory, at this late
>>>> > date,
>>>> > without noting all the recent studies indicating he'd been high on
>>>> > his
>>>> > own supply, is, to me, a serious oversight.
>>>>
>>>> > On the next page, he pulls another major gaffe, as far as I'm
>>>> > concerned. On the HSCA medical panel's acceptance that the bullet
>>>> > entered near the cowlick on the back of Kennedy's skull, and not near
>>>> > the EOP, as described at autopsy, he writes "They came to this
>>>> > conclusion partly because careful examination of the brain x-rays
>>>> > showed no evidence of a wound in the lower area." First of all, there
>>>> > were no "brain x-rays" per se. It was the brain photographs that
>>>> > convinced them. Second of all, it was not so much that the brain
>>>> > photos convinced them there'd been no wound in the lower area, but
>>>> > that the brain photographs convinced them there'd been no wound in
>>>> > the
>>>> > lower area as described in the autopsy report. They described the
>>>> > lower area as "virtually intact...It certainly does not demonstrate
>>>> > the
>>>> > degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears
>>>> > subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be
>>>> > expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as
>>>> > described in the autopsy report." While this may sound like nit-
>>>> > picking I believe this is important, in that it demonstrates the
>>>> > panel
>>>> > was aware of some damage, and that this damage may very well have
>>>> > been
>>>> > caused by something other than a high-speed military bullet tearing
>>>> > through Kennedy's skull.
>>>>
>>>> > In any event, Kaiser compounds this error by noting, just afterwards,
>>>> > that "Dr. Humes, one of the original autopsy surgeons, appeared
>>>> > before
>>>> > the HSCA and agreed that his team had misidentified the location of
>>>> > the wound in the original report" and leaving it at that. To me, this
>>>> > is just irresponsible. One hour's research would have shown him that
>>>> > Humes later denied ever agreeing to such a thing, that the other two
>>>> > doctors never changed their minds about the wound location, that the
>>>> > HSCA's counsel Gary Cornwell admitted pressuring Humes to change his
>>>> > mind, and had threatened to treat him as a hostile witness if he did
>>>> > not testify that he'd changed his mind, etc. Citing Humes' testimony
>>>> > as if it should be taken at face value is just bad bad history.
>>>>
>>>> > If one were to de-construct Kaiser's book, one might conclude that
>>>> > Kaiser thinks of himself as a professional historian, an "expert,"
>>>> > and
>>>> > that, as such, it is in his interest to promote the views and
>>>> > conclusions of other experts. While this is dime-store psychology at
>>>> > a
>>>> > discount, it is as good an explanation for Kaiser's near-blind
>>>> > acceptance of the work done by HSCA "experts" as any. But I'm not
>>>> > ready to do that. I'm hoping he just made a mistake, and failed to
>>>> > adequately question the work of the HSCA's experts. If so, might I
>>>> > suggest he do some catching up? My work is online and for free.
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.patspeer.com/www.patspeer.com-PatSpeer.com
>>>>
>>>> Pat , when you get a fact wrong , especially one so important as
>>>> Brennan
>>>> don't be surprised if others ignore your work .
>>>>
>>>> You stated that :  " he (Brennan) refused to ID Oswald when given a
>>>> chance? "
>>>>
>>>> This is not true . Howard Brennan "Declined" to ID Oswald . Look up the
>>>> terms and there's a big difference . He "Declined" because like most
>>>> people that day , including LBJ , he didn't know if accomplices were
>>>> lurking that might place himself or his family in danger .
>>>>
>>>> The following affidavit was executed by Howard Leslie Brennan on May 7,
>>>> 1964
>>>>
>>>> PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
>>>> AFFIDAVIT ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
>>>> STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:
>>>>
>>>> I, Howard Leslie Brennan, being first duly sworn, do upon oath depose
>>>> and state:
>>>>
>>>> On or about March 24, 1964, I testified in Washington, D.C., before the
>>>> President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. In
>>>> that
>>>> connection I testified as to the reasons why I declined on November 22,
>>>> 1963, to give, positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man
>>>> I
>>>> saw firing a rifle fro the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the
>>>> Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963.
>>>>
>>>> Included in these reasons at pages 3629 and 3630 of Volume 28 of the
>>>> transcript of the Commission proceedings are the following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> "And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself,
>>>> might
>>>> in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he
>>>> wasn't
>>>> going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately,
>>>> and
>>>> I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted
>>>> me,
>>>> my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they
>>>> didn't get in touch with me and to see that the man didn't get loose."
>>>> "...
>>>>
>>>> "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the
>>>> man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and
>>>> the had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all
>>>> that.
>>>> But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything
>>>> could
>>>> happen to me or my family."
>>>>
>>>> I have also been advised that on page 3595 of Volume 28 of the
>>>> transcript
>>>> the Commission proceedings, the following appears
>>>>
>>>> "Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family, an
>>>> yourself?
>>>> "Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
>>>> Communist activity, and I felt like there had been more than one eye
>>>> witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye witness,
>>>> my family or I, either one, might not be safe."
>>>> "Mr. BRENNAN: I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
>>>> Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one
>>>> eye witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye
>>>> witness. my family or I either one, might nor be safe."
>>>>
>>>> Signed the 7th day of May 1964.
>>>> (S) Howard Leslie Brennan.
>>>>
>>>> end ..................
>>>>
>>>> tl
>>>
>>> draftsman, as usual, you''re wrong. Brennan refused to ID Oswald. His
>>> failure to ID Oswald when given the chance resulted in NO record being
>>> created of his ever seeing Oswald in a lineup. It would, therefore, have
>>> been impossible for him to have gone back later and say that he saw
>>> Oswald. He had one shot, and REFUSED to do it. Everything he said
>>> afterwards was tainted by this failure.  He wanted to believe it was
>>> Oswald, enjoyed the notoriety he got from saying it was Oswald, etc.
>>>
>>> Over time he became so enamored with his potential role in history that
>>> he
>>> changed his story to fit the official story. He heard two shots.  By the
>>> end it was three. He saw someone who could have been Oswald. It later
>>> became Oswald. He saw one shot fired. It later became he saw two shots
>>> fired and two shots strike.  He has no more credibility than Jean Hill,
>>> etc. Single-assassin theorists like yourself would have a lot more
>>> credibility if they would admit to themselves that Brennan lacked
>>> credibility. A case built solely on witnesses like Brennan, Markham,
>>> Bledsoe, etc. would have been a sure loser.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Tell us how cortisone can effect the autopsy face sheet?
Tell us how cortisone can effect S S Agent Glen Bennett's testimony?
Tell us how cortisone can effect Dr. George Burkley?
Tell us how cortisone can effect The Horne Report?


"Jas" <jstell1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:480ff183@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Cliff, the problem with your bunched jacket theory/fact -- whatever you
> want to call it -- is you're not taking into consideration the way a
> jacket is made, and how it hangs over the shoulder structure of the upper
> body.
>
> There's extra material and fullness in the upper shoulder/back area to
> compensate for the natural outward curve of the upper spine. Look at an
> X-ray of the human spine from the perpendicular. You'll see this outward
> curve plain as day.
>
> Now, factor in that we know Kennedy suffered from Addison's disease, and
> the known fact that he took large doses of cortisone to treat his
> Addison's disease, and the known fact that cortisone causes a condition
> called Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome -- a further curvation of the upper
> back -- and what you have is the reason for the misalignment of the bullet
> holes in his shirt and jacket, and the actual bullet hole in his upper
> back.
>
> Then, factor in that while sitting in the limo Kennedy is not completely
> upright -- his back is not a flat, completely vertical line, and that his
> upper chest and neck area is slumped forward somewhat (another physical
> characteristic of Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome) and you can see that the
> holes in his upper back and lower throat can and do line up correctly for
> the single bullet.
>
> Google Iatrogenic Cushing's Syndrome. You'll see what I mean.
>
> James
>
>
> "Cliff" <nksy@sfo.com> wrote in message
> news:2ec46176-9b4a-4656-b163-7136217096ad@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 22, 10:08 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The bunch theory is obviously a bunch of !@#$%*&^.
>>>
>>> CJ
>>
>>
>> My favorite in all of this is Chad Zimmerman offering me
>> 10 grand cash if I could prove the accuracy of his
>> Unsolved History segment.
>>
>> I stipulated to everything he claimed on that show -- except
>> for the conclusion, which went against everything Chad had
>> written about bunch theory on his website and here at aajfk.
>>
>> That Discovery Channel segment destroyed bunch theory.
>>
>> Hilarious!
>>
>
>

SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?





<mucher1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60caea14-7b45-403a-8a7b-6e590896cb28@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Huh? Still having reading comprehension problems?

On 26 Apr, 15:33, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> STILL "Running" from it Huh mucher???
>
> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2901feaa-1c9e-4a2c-a789-19b09c5f01df@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Was it a serious question?! 7 HSCA 131.
>
> On 25 Apr, 20:04, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> REPOST FOR MUCHER;
>
> > In the Unlikely event that he Missed it;
>
> > You don't suppose he's Runnin from it do you???
>
> > "--------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------------------------------------------------
> > SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------------------------------------------"
>
> > <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:08731d8c-25e4-4209-9ef9-474c8462098f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
> > On 23 Apr., 03:31, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> > >> In article
> > >> <6a74c3ed-eb2a-4b03-8247-1e636c8f4...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> aeffects says...
>
> > >> >On Apr 22, 8:46 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> On 21 Apr., 15:34, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who
> > >> >>> try
> > >> >>> to defend
> > >> >> > the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only
> > >> >> > two
> > >> >>> semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and
> > >> >>> one
> > >> >>> by
> > >> >>> 'Bud'
> > >> >>(the
> > >> >>> troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of
> > >> >>> the
> > >> >>> facts in
> > >> >>most
> > >> >> > of the 'answers'.
>
> > >> >> > But first, an important note:
>
> > >> >> > **********************************************************************
> > >> >> > Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum
> > >> >> > who's
> > >> >> > only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and
> > >> >> > attempt
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal
> > >> >> > insults
> > >> >> > and attacks.
>
> > >> >> > These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> > >> >> > Baldoni
> > >> >> > Bigdog
> > >> >> > Bill
> > >> >> > Brokedad
> > >> >> > Bud
> > >> >> > Burlyguard
> > >> >> > Cdddraftsman
> > >> >> > Chuck Schuyler
> > >> >> > Chu...@amcmn.com
> > >> >> > Curious
> > >> >> > David Von Pein
> > >> >> > Ed Dolan *
> > >> >> > Justme1952
> > >> >> > Martybaugh...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > Miss Rita
> > >> >> > much...@hotmail.com
> > >> >> > much...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > Sam Brown
> > >> >> > Spiffy_one
> > >> >> > Timst...@Gmail.com
> > >> >> > Todd W. Vaughan
> > >> >> > YoHarvey
>
> > >> >> > Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they
> > >> >> > will
> > >> >> > simply
> > >> >> > deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided
> > >> >> > before, or
> > >> >> > simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > kill
> > >> >> > files.
>
> > >> >>> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be
> > >> >>> killfiled,
> > >> >>> but he's
> > >> >> > amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a
> > >> >> > plus.
> > >> >> > **********************************************************************
>
> > >> >> Self-serving bullshit.
>
> > >> >> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo?
>
> > >> >> It's very difficult to take you seriously when you make claims
> > >> >> like
> > >> >> the above.
>
> > >> And yet serious intelligent people will wonder about any refutations
> > >> you
> > >> make
> > >> when you can't provide any photos that *ARE* standard in such cases.
>
> > > Please make up your mind. You were originally asking for close-up
> > > photographs, and now they suddenly have to conform to some standard.
> > > Can you tell us what that 1963 standard says? What other contemporary
> > > cases you have in mind? Show us blood spatter evidence from those
> > > cases?
>
> > >> >> > John McAdams has
> > >> >> > asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos.
>
> > >> >> McAdams tore you to pieces:
>
> > >> Is this why he ran back to his censored group and refused to support
> > >> his
> > >> words?
>
> > > And you hide behind a killfilter and refuse to support your words.
> > > Hypocrite.
>
> > > Does it bug you that McAdams got the last word?
>
> > >> >> [aaj thread, "The Questions that Frighten the LNT'er Crowd", 23
> > >> >> Feb
> > >> >> 2007]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>
> > >> >> [aaj thread, "McAdams Answers the 35 Questions!!! (Or did he?)",
> > >> >> 26
> > >> >> Feb
> > >> >> 2007]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>
> > >> >> HOLMES. [Question #] 7. Why was there no close-up photographs ever
> > >> >> made of the limo? Why was it being washed within minutes of the
> > >> >> assassination?
> > >> >> MCADAMS. There were such photos. Pam used to have them on her
> > >> >> site.
> > >> >> HOLMES (interjecting). No, McAdams, there were not. Feel free to
> > >> >> cite
> > >> >> or produce them. I want to see photos that are standard in such
> > >> >> cases... to the detail where blood spatter patterns can be
> > >> >> determined.
> > >> >> MCADAMS. If you will just bother to look a bit on the web, you
> > >> >> should
> > >> >> find large color photos of the back seat of the limo.
> > >> >> As for "blook spatter:" there was blood on the
> > >> >> windshield.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
> > >> >> If you think more photos should have been taken, kindly post
> > >> >> evidence
> > >> >> that such was standard practice in 1963.
> > >> >> You can't do that, and you know you can't.
> > >> >> You are blowing smoke.
> > >> >> MCADAMS (continued). They were made in the White House Garage
> > >> >> after
> > >> >> the limo was returned to DC.
> > >> >> HOLMES. By all means, cite or produce them.
> > >> >> MCADAMS (interjecting). E-mail Pam and ask her.
> > >> >> HOLMES (continued). Then try answering the question that you
> > >> >> completely ducked... why was the limo being washed within minutes
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> the assassination?
> > >> >> MCADAMS. There is no evidence it was washed.
>
> > >> This, of course, is a lie.
>
> > > Evidence of the softest kind, not supported by any hard evidence.
>
> > >> >> Somebody had a bucket of
> > >> >> water next to the limo, but when it got to Washington, the back
> > >> >> seat
> > >> >> was still covered with blood and gore.
>
> > >> Interesting that I "interject", while McAdams merely "continues".
>
> > > Are you Mr. Sensitivity now? I was quoting from four emails at a time
> > > and inserted those words to guide the reader though the flow of the
> > > conversation. You'll also find McAdams "interjecting" below.
>
> > >> And you've clearly lied, since McAdams ran from this series, and
> > >> refused
> > >> to
> > >> answer my rebuttal. Anyone can go look the thread up and see that
> > >> McAdams
> > >> disappeared from it.
>
> > > What lie? He tore you to pieces, then disappeared.
>
> > >> >> On a related note:
>
> > >> >> HOLMES. [Question #] 20. Why did the Secret Service remove the
> > >> >> limo
> > >> >> from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the
> > >> >> scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?
> > >> >> MCADAMS. If the DPD had examined the limo, they would have found
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> same things that Frazier of the FBI found.
> > >> >> And you would be calling the DPD liars, and asking why the FBI did
> > >> >> not
> > >> >> inspect the limo.
> > >> >> HOLMES. Ducking the question isn't going to get the job done,
> > >> >> McAdams... the question is why did the Secret Service remove the
> > >> >> limo
> > >> >> from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
> > >> >> You didn't even *TRY* to address that question.
> > >> >> MCADAMS (interjecting). Why should I? It didn't make any
> > >> >> difference.
> > >> >> The DPD would have found what the FBI did.
> > >> >> And you would have called them liars when they turned up evidence
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> didn't like.
> > >> >> HOLMES (continued). And no, it's quite likely that if the limo had
> > >> >> been examined in Dallas - quite a bit more would today be known.
> > >> >> But
> > >> >> you know this, don't you?
> > >> >> MCADAMS. You mean the Dallas cops were more professional about
> > >> >> examining evidence than Frazier of the FBI?
> > >> >> You can't believe that.
>
> > >> Once again, you end it with McAdams. In fact, McAdams *SPECIFICALLY*
> > >> stated
> > >> that he'd not debate me on an uncensored forum. Here it is in it's
> > >> entirety:
>
> > >> **************************************************************
> > >> On 24 Feb 2007 13:22:57 -0800, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>
> > >> >Looks like it pays to keep an eye on the Censored group...
> > >> >for, like cowards everywhere - McAdams decided to post his
> > >> >answers where he knows I won't respond - and didn't bother
> > >> >to be honest enough to post it here...
>
> > >> You're the coward, Ben.
>
> > >> You want to post here on the Nuthouse because you know that, if
> > >> cornered, you can throw out a bunch of insults to sidetrack the
> > >> discussion.
>
> > >> You just don't have the guts to discuss the issues on their merits on
> > >> the moderated group.
>
> > >> I'm going to answer your points on the moderated group.
>
> > >> But just to warn you, I'm going to press you for evidence that what
> > >> you say is true, or if it's true but irrelevatn, I'm going to press
> > >> you to explain how it suggest conspiracy.
>
> > >> .John
> > >> **************************************************************
>
> > >> Here was the end results, which you won't post, of course:
>
> > >> **************************************************************
> > >> Sorry John, you didn't do your side very proud... here's the
> > >> results as I tabulate them. Anytime you're willing to try again,
> > >> I'll be happy to update this listing. But do try to be honest
> > >> enough to post any replies to the news forum that I normally
> > >> attend.
>
> > >> Totals:
> > >> 1 Simple Denial
> > >> 2 Simple Denial
> > >> 3 Ducked Question - no answer
> > >> 4 Ducked Question - non-responsive
> > >> 5 Simple Denial
> > >> 6 Simple Denial
> > >> 7 Contradicted Facts, no citation - Failed to answer question.
> > >> 8 Simple Denial
> > >> 9 Answered (But the answer is hilarious!)
> > >> 10 Simple Denial
> > >> 11 Simple Denial
> > >> 12 "Doesn't know"
> > >> 13 Simple Denial
> > >> 14 Simple Denial
> > >> 15 Simple Denial
> > >> 16 Simple Denial
> > >> 17 Lied about the Facts.
> > >> 18 Simple Denial
> > >> 19 Simple Denial
> > >> 20 Ducked Question
> > >> 21 Simple Denial
> > >> 22 Simple Denial
> > >> 23 Answered (But the answer is silly and anachronistic)
> > >> 24 Simple Denial
> > >> 25 Simple Denial
> > >> 26 Ducked Question - no answer.
> > >> 27 Ducked Question - no answer.
> > >> 28 Ducked Question - no answer.
> > >> 29 Ducked Question - no answer.
> > >> 30 No answer needed. Directed at another LNT'er.
> > >> 31 Simple Denial
> > >> 32 Answered - but non-responsive to the question
> > >> 33 Simple Denial
> > >> 34 Partially Answered - but not in accordance with the evidence.
> > >> 35 Ducked Question
>
> > >> [These 35 questions are, for the purposes of John McAdams' JFK
> > >> course,
> > >> will be
> > >> given a "Top Secret" classification - any students of McAdams are
> > >> hearby
> > >> notified that this post is *NOT* to be diseminated to other students
> > >> should you
> > >> somehow find a copy of this. You must immediately burn this - and
> > >> forget
> > >> anything you've read here...]
> > >> *****************************************************
>
> > > Very funny, but you still have a case to solve.
>
> > >> >> > Considering that Secret
> > >> >> > Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general
> > >> >> > crime
> > >> >> > scene
> > >> >> > procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the
> > >> >> > assassination?
>
> > >> >> It seems that (partial) cleaning was at least contemplated,
>
> > >> Good word ... "contemplated"... in the frantic rush of JFK being
> > >> wheeled
> > >> to the
> > >> emergency room, someone stopped to "contemplate" washing the limo.
>
> > > Please feel free to prove that any washing activity went beyond the
> > > contemplation stage.
>
> > >> ROTFLMAO!!
>
> > >> >> but
> > >> >> descriptions offered by members of the press are light on details
> > >> >> about any "washing" of the limo.
>
> > >> And yet, specific statements by eyewitnesses about limo washing
> > >> *have*
> > >> been made
> > >> available in the past.
>
> > > What are the specifics?
>
> > >> >> Agents present during the forensic
> > >> >> examination didn't seem to notice any signs of such activity, as
> > >> >> Burly
> > >> >> has pointed out. Perhaps you're implying that the agents who took
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> pictures in the WHG were careful not to record any evidence of
> > >> >> (say)
> > >> >> blood spatter having been wiped off the trunk, but with such a
> > >> >> level
> > >> >> of collusion, a public "washing" of the limo would hardly have
> > >> >> been
> > >> >> necessary, would it?
>
> > >> We don't have crime scene photography of such detail to make these
> > >> sort
> > >> of
> > >> decisions. They don't exist.
>
> > > Hence your question (#8)?
>
> > >> >> > Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > pre-planned action?
>
> > >> >> At her website, Pamela McElwain-Brown suggests that the water may
> > >> >> have
> > >> >> been used to "clear debris from the cowl of the back seat and, the
> > >> >> center partition area and the chrome molding around the
> > >> >> windshield,
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> order for the clamps used with the plexiglass roof to take hold."
> > >> >> I
> > >> >> suppose that other, less rational, considerations may also have
> > >> >> played
> > >> >> a role. At any rate, it's downright silly to suggest that agents
> > >> >> scurrying around for a bucket of water is a sign of pre-planning.
>
> > >> >> -Mark
>
> > >> >who-say, what-say... c'mon troll... ROTFLMFAO!
>
> > >> Such a silly bit of reasoning by Pamela... within minutes of arriving
> > >> at
> > >> Parkland, even as JFK is being wheeled to the emergency room, the
> > >> first
> > >> actions
> > >> they think of is to get the roof up on the limo.
>
> > > Sillier than the idea of destroying evidence in front of reporters?
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-----------------------------------------------------------
> > SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------------------------------------------

You SURE did type too fast mucher.

 HSCA Volume VII page 131 does NOT mention either Clint Hill NOR, the large
 piece of JFK's skull he SAW on the back seat enroute to Parkland Hospital.

 AGAIN;
 I ask you WHERE is that piece of skull??
 It's NOT in the photos of the limo taken in the white house garage on
Friday
 night.

That page is HERE>>>

 http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm

 U TYPED TOO FAST



> <mucher1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9b818263-b45c-4748-ae8c-0838ffe0cd00@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Did I type too fast the first time? 7 HSCA 131.
>
> On 28 Apr, 18:05, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?
>>
>> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:60caea14-7b45-403a-8a7b-6e590896cb28@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> Huh? Still having reading comprehension problems?
>>
>> On 26 Apr, 15:33, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > STILL "Running" from it Huh mucher???
>>
>> > <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:2901feaa-1c9e-4a2c-a789-19b09c5f01df@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > Was it a serious question?! 7 HSCA 131.
>>
>> > On 25 Apr, 20:04, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> REPOST FOR MUCHER;
>>
>> > > In the Unlikely event that he Missed it;
>>
>> > > You don't suppose he's Runnin from it do you???
>>
>> > > "--------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?
>>
>> > > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­------------------------------------------------------"
>>
>> > > <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:08731d8c-25e4-4209-9ef9-474c8462098f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
>> > > On 23 Apr., 03:31, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> > > >> In article
>> > > >> <6a74c3ed-eb2a-4b03-8247-1e636c8f4...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > >> aeffects says...
>>
>> > > >> >On Apr 22, 8:46 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> >> On 21 Apr., 15:34, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >>> Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those
>> > > >> >>> who
>> > > >> >>> try
>> > > >> >>> to defend
>> > > >> >> > the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been
>> > > >> >> > only
>> > > >> >> > two
>> > > >> >>> semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and
>> > > >> >>> one
>> > > >> >>> by
>> > > >> >>> 'Bud'
>> > > >> >>(the
>> > > >> >>> troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of
>> > > >> >>> the
>> > > >> >>> facts in
>> > > >> >>most
>> > > >> >> > of the 'answers'.
>>
>> > > >> >> > But first, an important note:
>>
>> > > >> >> > **********************************************************************
>> > > >> >> > Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this
>> > > >> >> > forum
>> > > >> >> > who's
>> > > >> >> > only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and
>> > > >> >> > attempt
>> > > >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> > change message threads from discussing the evidence, to
>> > > >> >> > personal
>> > > >> >> > insults
>> > > >> >> > and attacks.
>>
>> > > >> >> > These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>>
>> > > >> >> > Baldoni
>> > > >> >> > Bigdog
>> > > >> >> > Bill
>> > > >> >> > Brokedad
>> > > >> >> > Bud
>> > > >> >> > Burlyguard
>> > > >> >> > Cdddraftsman
>> > > >> >> > Chuck Schuyler
>> > > >> >> > Chu...@amcmn.com
>> > > >> >> > Curious
>> > > >> >> > David Von Pein
>> > > >> >> > Ed Dolan *
>> > > >> >> > Justme1952
>> > > >> >> > Martybaugh...@gmail.com
>> > > >> >> > Miss Rita
>> > > >> >> > much...@hotmail.com
>> > > >> >> > much...@gmail.com
>> > > >> >> > Sam Brown
>> > > >> >> > Spiffy_one
>> > > >> >> > Timst...@Gmail.com
>> > > >> >> > Todd W. Vaughan
>> > > >> >> > YoHarvey
>>
>> > > >> >> > Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they
>> > > >> >> > will
>> > > >> >> > simply
>> > > >> >> > deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided
>> > > >> >> > before, or
>> > > >> >> > simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material
>> > > >> >> > for
>> > > >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> > kill
>> > > >> >> > files.
>>
>> > > >> >>> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be
>> > > >> >>> killfiled,
>> > > >> >>> but he's
>> > > >> >> > amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is
>> > > >> >> > a
>> > > >> >> > plus.
>> > > >> >> > **********************************************************************
>>
>> > > >> >> Self-serving bullshit.
>>
>> > > >> >> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the
>> > > >> >> > limo?
>>
>> > > >> >> It's very difficult to take you seriously when you make claims
>> > > >> >> like
>> > > >> >> the above.
>>
>> > > >> And yet serious intelligent people will wonder about any
>> > > >> refutations
>> > > >> you
>> > > >> make
>> > > >> when you can't provide any photos that *ARE* standard in such
>> > > >> cases.
>>
>> > > > Please make up your mind. You were originally asking for close-up
>> > > > photographs, and now they suddenly have to conform to some
>> > > > standard.
>> > > > Can you tell us what that 1963 standard says? What other
>> > > > contemporary
>> > > > cases you have in mind? Show us blood spatter evidence from those
>> > > > cases?
>>
>> > > >> >> > John McAdams has
>> > > >> >> > asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos.
>>
>> > > >> >> McAdams tore you to pieces:
>>
>> > > >> Is this why he ran back to his censored group and refused to
>> > > >> support
>> > > >> his
>> > > >> words?
>>
>> > > > And you hide behind a killfilter and refuse to support your words.
>> > > > Hypocrite.
>>
>> > > > Does it bug you that McAdams got the last word?
>>
>> > > >> >> [aaj thread, "The Questions that Frighten the LNT'er Crowd", 23
>> > > >> >> Feb
>> > > >> >> 2007]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>>
>> > > >> >> [aaj thread, "McAdams Answers the 35 Questions!!! (Or did
>> > > >> >> he?)",
>> > > >> >> 26
>> > > >> >> Feb
>> > > >> >> 2007]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>>
>> > > >> >> HOLMES. [Question #] 7. Why was there no close-up photographs
>> > > >> >> ever
>> > > >> >> made of the limo? Why was it being washed within minutes of the
>> > > >> >> assassination?
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS. There were such photos. Pam used to have them on her
>> > > >> >> site.
>> > > >> >> HOLMES (interjecting). No, McAdams, there were not. Feel free
>> > > >> >> to
>> > > >> >> cite
>> > > >> >> or produce them. I want to see photos that are standard in such
>> > > >> >> cases... to the detail where blood spatter patterns can be
>> > > >> >> determined.
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS. If you will just bother to look a bit on the web, you
>> > > >> >> should
>> > > >> >> find large color photos of the back seat of the limo.
>> > > >> >> As for "blook spatter:" there was blood on the
>> > > >> >> windshield.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
>> > > >> >> If you think more photos should have been taken, kindly post
>> > > >> >> evidence
>> > > >> >> that such was standard practice in 1963.
>> > > >> >> You can't do that, and you know you can't.
>> > > >> >> You are blowing smoke.
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS (continued). They were made in the White House Garage
>> > > >> >> after
>> > > >> >> the limo was returned to DC.
>> > > >> >> HOLMES. By all means, cite or produce them.
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS (interjecting). E-mail Pam and ask her.
>> > > >> >> HOLMES (continued). Then try answering the question that you
>> > > >> >> completely ducked... why was the limo being washed within
>> > > >> >> minutes
>> > > >> >> of
>> > > >> >> the assassination?
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS. There is no evidence it was washed.
>>
>> > > >> This, of course, is a lie.
>>
>> > > > Evidence of the softest kind, not supported by any hard evidence.
>>
>> > > >> >> Somebody had a bucket of
>> > > >> >> water next to the limo, but when it got to Washington, the back
>> > > >> >> seat
>> > > >> >> was still covered with blood and gore.
>>
>> > > >> Interesting that I "interject", while McAdams merely "continues".
>>
>> > > > Are you Mr. Sensitivity now? I was quoting from four emails at a
>> > > > time
>> > > > and inserted those words to guide the reader though the flow of the
>> > > > conversation. You'll also find McAdams "interjecting" below.
>>
>> > > >> And you've clearly lied, since McAdams ran from this series, and
>> > > >> refused
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> answer my rebuttal. Anyone can go look the thread up and see that
>> > > >> McAdams
>> > > >> disappeared from it.
>>
>> > > > What lie? He tore you to pieces, then disappeared.
>>
>> > > >> >> On a related note:
>>
>> > > >> >> HOLMES. [Question #] 20. Why did the Secret Service remove the
>> > > >> >> limo
>> > > >> >> from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be
>> > > >> >> made
>> > > >> >> for
>> > > >> >> removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to
>> > > >> >> provide
>> > > >> >> an
>> > > >> >> aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove
>> > > >> >> the
>> > > >> >> scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide
>> > > >> >> it?
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS. If the DPD had examined the limo, they would have
>> > > >> >> found
>> > > >> >> the
>> > > >> >> same things that Frazier of the FBI found.
>> > > >> >> And you would be calling the DPD liars, and asking why the FBI
>> > > >> >> did
>> > > >> >> not
>> > > >> >> inspect the limo.
>> > > >> >> HOLMES. Ducking the question isn't going to get the job done,
>> > > >> >> McAdams... the question is why did the Secret Service remove
>> > > >> >> the
>> > > >> >> limo
>> > > >> >> from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
>> > > >> >> You didn't even *TRY* to address that question.
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS (interjecting). Why should I? It didn't make any
>> > > >> >> difference.
>> > > >> >> The DPD would have found what the FBI did.
>> > > >> >> And you would have called them liars when they turned up
>> > > >> >> evidence
>> > > >> >> you
>> > > >> >> didn't like.
>> > > >> >> HOLMES (continued). And no, it's quite likely that if the limo
>> > > >> >> had
>> > > >> >> been examined in Dallas - quite a bit more would today be
>> > > >> >> known.
>> > > >> >> But
>> > > >> >> you know this, don't you?
>> > > >> >> MCADAMS. You mean the Dallas cops were more professional about
>> > > >> >> examining evidence than Frazier of the FBI?
>> > > >> >> You can't believe that.
>>
>> > > >> Once again, you end it with McAdams. In fact, McAdams
>> > > >> *SPECIFICALLY*
>> > > >> stated
>> > > >> that he'd not debate me on an uncensored forum. Here it is in it's
>> > > >> entirety:
>>
>> > > >> **************************************************************
>> > > >> On 24 Feb 2007 13:22:57 -0800, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org>
>> > > >> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >Looks like it pays to keep an eye on the Censored group...
>> > > >> >for, like cowards everywhere - McAdams decided to post his
>> > > >> >answers where he knows I won't respond - and didn't bother
>> > > >> >to be honest enough to post it here...
>>
>> > > >> You're the coward, Ben.
>>
>> > > >> You want to post here on the Nuthouse because you know that, if
>> > > >> cornered, you can throw out a bunch of insults to sidetrack the
>> > > >> discussion.
>>
>> > > >> You just don't have the guts to discuss the issues on their merits
>> > > >> on
>> > > >> the moderated group.
>>
>> > > >> I'm going to answer your points on the moderated group.
>>
>> > > >> But just to warn you, I'm going to press you for evidence that
>> > > >> what
>> > > >> you say is true, or if it's true but irrelevatn, I'm going to
>> > > >> press
>> > > >> you to explain how it suggest conspiracy.
>>
>> > > >> .John
>> > > >> **************************************************************
>>
>> > > >> Here was the end results, which you won't post, of course:
>>
>> > > >> **************************************************************
>> > > >> Sorry John, you didn't do your side very proud... here's the
>> > > >> results as I tabulate them. Anytime you're willing to try again,
>> > > >> I'll be happy to update this listing. But do try to be honest
>> > > >> enough to post any replies to the news forum that I normally
>> > > >> attend.
>>
>> > > >> Totals:
>> > > >> 1 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 2 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 3 Ducked Question - no answer
>> > > >> 4 Ducked Question - non-responsive
>> > > >> 5 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 6 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 7 Contradicted Facts, no citation - Failed to answer question.
>> > > >> 8 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 9 Answered (But the answer is hilarious!)
>> > > >> 10 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 11 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 12 "Doesn't know"
>> > > >> 13 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 14 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 15 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 16 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 17 Lied about the Facts.
>> > > >> 18 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 19 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 20 Ducked Question
>> > > >> 21 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 22 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 23 Answered (But the answer is silly and anachronistic)
>> > > >> 24 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 25 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 26 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> > > >> 27 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> > > >> 28 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> > > >> 29 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> > > >> 30 No answer needed. Directed at another LNT'er.
>> > > >> 31 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 32 Answered - but non-responsive to the question
>> > > >> 33 Simple Denial
>> > > >> 34 Partially Answered - but not in accordance with the evidence.
>> > > >> 35 Ducked Question
>>
>> > > >> [These 35 questions are, for the purposes of John McAdams' JFK
>> > > >> course,
>> > > >> will be
>> > > >> given a "Top Secret" classification - any students of McAdams are
>> > > >> hearby
>> > > >> notified that this post is *NOT* to be diseminated to other
>> > > >> students
>> > > >> should you
>> > > >> somehow find a copy of this. You must immediately burn this - and
>> > > >> forget
>> > > >> anything you've read here...]
>> > > >> *****************************************************
>>
>> > > > Very funny, but you still have a case to solve.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Considering that Secret
>> > > >> >> > Service agents are college educated, and well aware of
>> > > >> >> > general
>> > > >> >> > crime
>> > > >> >> > scene
>> > > >> >> > procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of
>> > > >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> > assassination?
>>
>> > > >> >> It seems that (partial) cleaning was at least contemplated,
>>
>> > > >> Good word ... "contemplated"... in the frantic rush of JFK being
>> > > >> wheeled
>> > > >> to the
>> > > >> emergency room, someone stopped to "contemplate" washing the limo.
>>
>> > > > Please feel free to prove that any washing activity went beyond the
>> > > > contemplation stage.
>>
>> > > >> ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>> > > >> >> but
>> > > >> >> descriptions offered by members of the press are light on
>> > > >> >> details
>> > > >> >> about any "washing" of the limo.
>>
>> > > >> And yet, specific statements by eyewitnesses about limo washing
>> > > >> *have*
>> > > >> been made
>> > > >> available in the past.
>>
>> > > > What are the specifics?
>>
>> > > >> >> Agents present during the forensic
>> > > >> >> examination didn't seem to notice any signs of such activity,
>> > > >> >> as
>> > > >> >> Burly
>> > > >> >> has pointed out. Perhaps you're implying that the agents who
>> > > >> >> took
>> > > >> >> the
>> > > >> >> pictures in the WHG were careful not to record any evidence of
>> > > >> >> (say)
>> > > >> >> blood spatter having been wiped off the trunk, but with such a
>> > > >> >> level
>> > > >> >> of collusion, a public "washing" of the limo would hardly have
>> > > >> >> been
>> > > >> >> necessary, would it?
>>
>> > > >> We don't have crime scene photography of such detail to make these
>> > > >> sort
>> > > >> of
>> > > >> decisions. They don't exist.
>>
>> > > > Hence your question (#8)?
>>
>> > > >> >> > Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to
>> > > >> >> > indicate
>> > > >> >> > a
>> > > >> >> > pre-planned action?
>>
>> > > >> >> At her website, Pamela McElwain-Brown suggests that the water
>> > > >> >> may
>> > > >> >> have
>> > > >> >> been used to "clear debris from the cowl of the back seat and,
>> > > >> >> the
>> > > >> >> center partition area and the chrome molding around the
>> > > >> >> windshield,
>> > > >> >> in
>> > > >> >> order for the clamps used with the plexiglass roof to take
>> > > >> >> hold."
>> > > >> >> I
>> > > >> >> suppose that other, less rational, considerations may also have
>> > > >> >> played
>> > > >> >> a role. At any rate, it's downright silly to suggest that
>> > > >> >> agents
>> > > >> >> scurrying around for a bucket of water is a sign of
>> > > >> >> pre-planning.
>>
>> > > >> >> -Mark
>>
>> > > >> >who-say, what-say... c'mon troll... ROTFLMFAO!
>>
>> > > >> Such a silly bit of reasoning by Pamela... within minutes of
>> > > >> arriving
>> > > >> at
>> > > >> Parkland, even as JFK is being wheeled to the emergency room, the
>> > > >> first
>> > > >> actions
>> > > >> they think of is to get the roof up on the limo.
>>
>> > > > Sillier than the idea of destroying evidence in front of reporters?
>>
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­-----------------------------------------------------------
>> > > SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?
>>
>> > > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­-------------------------------------------------------

<mucher1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08731d8c-25e4-4209-9ef9-474c8462098f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Apr., 03:31, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <6a74c3ed-eb2a-4b03-8247-1e636c8f4...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Apr 22, 8:46 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On 21 Apr., 15:34, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try
>> >>> to defend
>> >> > the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two
>> >>> semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by
>> >>> 'Bud'
>> >>(the
>> >>> troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the
>> >>> facts in
>> >>most
>> >> > of the 'answers'.
>>
>> >> > But first, an important note:
>>
>> >> > **********************************************************************
>> >> > Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum
>> >> > who's
>> >> > only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt
>> >> > to
>> >> > change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal
>> >> > insults
>> >> > and attacks.
>>
>> >> > These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>>
>> >> > Baldoni
>> >> > Bigdog
>> >> > Bill
>> >> > Brokedad
>> >> > Bud
>> >> > Burlyguard
>> >> > Cdddraftsman
>> >> > Chuck Schuyler
>> >> > Chu...@amcmn.com
>> >> > Curious
>> >> > David Von Pein
>> >> > Ed Dolan *
>> >> > Justme1952
>> >> > Martybaugh...@gmail.com
>> >> > Miss Rita
>> >> > much...@hotmail.com
>> >> > much...@gmail.com
>> >> > Sam Brown
>> >> > Spiffy_one
>> >> > Timst...@Gmail.com
>> >> > Todd W. Vaughan
>> >> > YoHarvey
>>
>> >> > Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will
>> >> > simply
>> >> > deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided
>> >> > before, or
>> >> > simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the
>> >> > kill
>> >> > files.
>>
>> >>> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled,
>> >>> but he's
>> >> > amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>> >> > **********************************************************************
>>
>> >> Self-serving bullshit.
>>
>> >> > 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo?
>>
>> >> It's very difficult to take you seriously when you make claims like
>> >> the above.
>>
>> And yet serious intelligent people will wonder about any refutations you
>> make
>> when you can't provide any photos that *ARE* standard in such cases.
>
> Please make up your mind. You were originally asking for close-up
> photographs, and now they suddenly have to conform to some standard.
> Can you tell us what that 1963 standard says? What other contemporary
> cases you have in mind? Show us blood spatter evidence from those
> cases?
>
>> >> > John McAdams has
>> >> > asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos.
>>
>> >> McAdams tore you to pieces:
>>
>> Is this why he ran back to his censored group and refused to support his
>> words?
>
> And you hide behind a killfilter and refuse to support your words.
> Hypocrite.
>
> Does it bug you that McAdams got the last word?
>
>> >> [aaj thread, "The Questions that Frighten the LNT'er Crowd", 23 Feb
>> >> 2007]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>>
>> >> [aaj thread, "McAdams Answers the 35 Questions!!! (Or did he?)", 26
>> >> Feb
>> >> 2007]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>>
>> >> HOLMES. [Question #] 7. Why was there no close-up photographs ever
>> >> made of the limo? Why was it being washed within minutes of the
>> >> assassination?
>> >> MCADAMS. There were such photos. Pam used to have them on her site.
>> >> HOLMES (interjecting). No, McAdams, there were not. Feel free to cite
>> >> or produce them. I want to see photos that are standard in such
>> >> cases... to the detail where blood spatter patterns can be determined.
>> >> MCADAMS. If you will just bother to look a bit on the web, you should
>> >> find large color photos of the back seat of the limo.
>> >> As for "blook spatter:" there was blood on the
>> >> windshield.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
>> >> If you think more photos should have been taken, kindly post evidence
>> >> that such was standard practice in 1963.
>> >> You can't do that, and you know you can't.
>> >> You are blowing smoke.
>> >> MCADAMS (continued). They were made in the White House Garage after
>> >> the limo was returned to DC.
>> >> HOLMES. By all means, cite or produce them.
>> >> MCADAMS (interjecting). E-mail Pam and ask her.
>> >> HOLMES (continued). Then try answering the question that you
>> >> completely ducked... why was the limo being washed within minutes of
>> >> the assassination?
>> >> MCADAMS. There is no evidence it was washed.
>>
>> This, of course, is a lie.
>
> Evidence of the softest kind, not supported by any hard evidence.
>
>> >> Somebody had a bucket of
>> >> water next to the limo, but when it got to Washington, the back seat
>> >> was still covered with blood and gore.
>>
>> Interesting that I "interject", while McAdams merely "continues".
>
> Are you Mr. Sensitivity now? I was quoting from four emails at a time
> and inserted those words to guide the reader though the flow of the
> conversation. You'll also find McAdams "interjecting" below.
>
>> And you've clearly lied, since McAdams ran from this series, and refused
>> to
>> answer my rebuttal.  Anyone can go look the thread up and see that
>> McAdams
>> disappeared from it.
>
> What lie? He tore you to pieces, then disappeared.
>
>> >> On a related note:
>>
>> >> HOLMES. [Question #] 20. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo
>> >> from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for
>> >> removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an
>> >> aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the
>> >> scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?
>> >> MCADAMS. If the DPD had examined the limo, they would have found the
>> >> same things that Frazier of the FBI found.
>> >> And you would be calling the DPD liars, and asking why the FBI did not
>> >> inspect the limo.
>> >> HOLMES. Ducking the question isn't going to get the job done,
>> >> McAdams... the question is why did the Secret Service remove the limo
>> >> from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
>> >> You didn't even *TRY* to address that question.
>> >> MCADAMS (interjecting). Why should I? It didn't make any difference.
>> >> The DPD would have found what the FBI did.
>> >> And you would have called them liars when they turned up evidence you
>> >> didn't like.
>> >> HOLMES (continued). And no, it's quite likely that if the limo had
>> >> been examined in Dallas - quite a bit more would today be known. But
>> >> you know this, don't you?
>> >> MCADAMS. You mean the Dallas cops were more professional about
>> >> examining evidence than Frazier of the FBI?
>> >> You can't believe that.
>>
>> Once again, you end it with McAdams.  In fact, McAdams *SPECIFICALLY*
>> stated
>> that he'd not debate me on an uncensored forum.  Here it is in it's
>> entirety:
>>
>> **************************************************************
>> On 24 Feb 2007 13:22:57 -0800, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Looks like it pays to keep an eye on the Censored group...
>> >for, like cowards everywhere - McAdams decided to post his
>> >answers where he knows I won't respond - and didn't bother
>> >to be honest enough to post it here...
>>
>> You're the coward, Ben.
>>
>> You want to post here on the Nuthouse because you know that, if
>> cornered, you can throw out a bunch of insults to sidetrack the
>> discussion.
>>
>> You just don't have the guts to discuss the issues on their merits on
>> the moderated group.
>>
>> I'm going to answer your points on the moderated group.
>>
>> But just to warn you, I'm going to press you for evidence that what
>> you say is true, or if it's true but irrelevatn, I'm going to press
>> you to explain how it suggest conspiracy.
>>
>> .John
>> **************************************************************
>>
>> Here was the end results, which you won't post, of course:
>>
>> **************************************************************
>> Sorry John, you didn't do your side very proud... here's the
>> results as I tabulate them.  Anytime you're willing to try again,
>> I'll be happy to update this listing.  But do try to be honest
>> enough to post any replies to the news forum that I normally
>> attend.
>>
>> Totals:
>>  1 Simple Denial
>>  2 Simple Denial
>>  3 Ducked Question - no answer
>>  4 Ducked Question - non-responsive
>>  5 Simple Denial
>>  6 Simple Denial
>>  7 Contradicted Facts, no citation - Failed to answer  question.
>>  8 Simple Denial
>>  9 Answered (But the answer is hilarious!)
>> 10 Simple Denial
>> 11 Simple Denial
>> 12 "Doesn't know"
>> 13 Simple Denial
>> 14 Simple Denial
>> 15 Simple Denial
>> 16 Simple Denial
>> 17 Lied about the Facts.
>> 18 Simple Denial
>> 19 Simple Denial
>> 20 Ducked Question
>> 21 Simple Denial
>> 22 Simple Denial
>> 23 Answered (But the answer is silly and anachronistic)
>> 24 Simple Denial
>> 25 Simple Denial
>> 26 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> 27 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> 28 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> 29 Ducked Question - no answer.
>> 30 No answer needed. Directed at another LNT'er.
>> 31 Simple Denial
>> 32 Answered - but non-responsive to the question
>> 33 Simple Denial
>> 34 Partially Answered - but not in accordance with the evidence.
>> 35 Ducked Question
>>
>> [These 35 questions are, for the purposes of John McAdams' JFK course,
>> will be
>> given a "Top Secret" classification - any students of McAdams are hearby
>> notified that this post is *NOT* to be diseminated to other students
>> should you
>> somehow find a copy of this. You must immediately burn this - and forget
>> anything you've read here...]
>> *****************************************************
>
> Very funny, but you still have a case to solve.
>
>> >> > Considering that Secret
>> >> > Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime
>> >> > scene
>> >> > procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the
>> >> > assassination?
>>
>> >> It seems that (partial) cleaning was at least contemplated,
>>
>> Good word ... "contemplated"... in the frantic rush of JFK being wheeled
>> to the
>> emergency room, someone stopped to "contemplate" washing the limo.
>
> Please feel free to prove that any washing activity went beyond the
> contemplation stage.
>
>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>> >> but
>> >> descriptions offered by members of the press are light on details
>> >> about any "washing" of the limo.
>>
>> And yet, specific statements by eyewitnesses about limo washing *have*
>> been made
>> available in the past.
>
> What are the specifics?
>
>> >> Agents present during the forensic
>> >> examination didn't seem to notice any signs of such activity, as Burly
>> >> has pointed out. Perhaps you're implying that the agents who took the
>> >> pictures in the WHG were careful not to record any evidence of (say)
>> >> blood spatter having been wiped off the trunk, but with such a level
>> >> of collusion, a public "washing" of the limo would hardly have been
>> >> necessary, would it?
>>
>> We don't have crime scene photography of such detail to make these sort
>> of
>> decisions.  They don't exist.
>
> Hence your question (#8)?
>
>> >> > Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a
>> >> > pre-planned action?
>>
>> >> At her website, Pamela McElwain-Brown suggests that the water may have
>> >> been used to "clear debris from the cowl of the back seat and, the
>> >> center partition area and the chrome molding around the windshield, in
>> >> order for the clamps used with the plexiglass roof to take hold." I
>> >> suppose that other, less rational, considerations may also have played
>> >> a role. At any rate, it's downright silly to suggest that agents
>> >> scurrying around for a bucket of water is a sign of pre-planning.
>>
>> >> -Mark
>>
>> >who-say, what-say... c'mon troll... ROTFLMFAO!
>>
>> Such a silly bit of reasoning by Pamela... within minutes of arriving at
>> Parkland, even as JFK is being wheeled to the emergency room, the first
>> actions
>> they think of is to get the roof up on the limo.
>
> Sillier than the idea of destroying evidence in front of reporters?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHOW us the large piece of skull Clint Hill SAW on the seat mucher?

SEE>>>   http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOP POST;

Timmy keeps Ignoring Duran's Description of the Oswald she saw in Mexico
City;

SEE>>>   http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm

SEE>>>   http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm


Timmy keeps Ignoring that the HSCA BELIEVED Sylvia Odio.
   HSCA Report page 137

That's why Timmy won't touch the issues of "Tainted" evidence/testimony>>>

http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm

http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm




"Peter Fokes" <jpfCT@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:v4a91417a7tj1u55vhkrf5833e96olfe40@4ax.com...
> On 24 Apr 2008 01:06:56 -0400, timstter@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>TOP POST
>>
>>Hi tomnln,
>>
>>Say, why do you continue to post that link to your Mexico City page on
>>which you claim that Mrs Duran *then and only then identified Oswald as
>>the man she met* AFTER some CIA tapes were sent to the Dallas FBI on 25
>>November, 1963?
>>
>>As was pointed out to you months ago, tomnln, that is completely wrong. CE
>>2121 shows that Duran identified Oswald the evening of 23 November, 1963,
>>as being the man she met in a signed statement.
>
> Duran's role in this whole affair must be viewed with suspicion.
>
> Was she a Marxist? Was she a double agent? Who was her master?
>
>
> PF
>
>
>>
>>CE 2121, tomnln. Evidence/testimony, tomnln. Evidence/testimony that you
>>continue to ignore, tomnln.
>>
>>Now why is that?
>>
>>Concerned Regards,
>>
>>Tim Brennan
>>Sydney, Australia
>>*Newsgroup Commentator*
>>
>>On Apr 21, 2:45 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>>>
>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>>>
>>> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:fc2be7b1-c89c-4cee-aced-c70f97d8b6ac@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>> MIDDLE POST
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On Apr 19, 1:58 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 18 Apr 2008 00:07:29 -0400, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > >TOP POST
>>>
>>> > >By golly, Tommy, I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Mrs
>>> > >Duran,
>>> > >throughout her HSCA testimony, says that Oswald is the man she met.
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately Duran is an unreliable witness. She was physically
>>> > tortured. Recall also that her superior Aczue saw this same man and
>>> > testified:
>>>
>>> Hmm, no, you're not following the sequence of events, as previously
>>> pointed out to you, in arriving at your conclusion that she is *an
>>> unreliable witness*.
>>>
>>> Duran thought the evening of 22 November that Oswald was the person she
>>> had met on 27 September and told her husband that.
>>>
>>> The morning of 23 November she saw Oswald's photo in the newspaper El
>>> Dia
>>> and was certain it was him. She then went into the Consulate and found
>>> his
>>> application, which had a photo of the same man, Oswald, on it. She then
>>> brought this file to the attention of her superiors at the Consulate.
>>>
>>> It was later in the day that she was arrested, AFTER she had already
>>> identified Oswald as being the man she met to the Consulate staff.
>>>
>>> At 6pm on 23 November she signed a statement affirming that Oswald was
>>> the
>>> man she had met and was described as being *completely co- operative*.
>>> She
>>> had nothing to hide.
>>>
>>> Duran was back at work at the Consulate on 25 November. She was arrested
>>> the second time AFTER Oswald's death and the interrogation then became
>>> more hostile.
>>>
>>> She had already TWICE identified Oswald as the man she met before she
>>> was
>>> *tortured*, a very emotive claim made by you.
>>>
>>> > Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the best of
>>> > your memory who visited the consulate?
>>> > Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond.
>>>
>>> My information is that, for a person of Latin descent to describe a
>>> white
>>> American like Oswald as *blond* was not an uncommon event. It would be a
>>> mistake to construe that that meant he looked like a Scandinavian.
>>>
>>> > >She also says in her HSCA testimony that *everything in her (WC)
>>> > >statement
>>> > >is the truth*, ie the document she signed on 23 November, 1963,
>>> > >stating
>>> > >that Oswald was the person she met.
>>>
>>> > Well, he might have said his name was OSWALD, so she could truthfully
>>> > say she met Oswald. But, of course, that is not evidence she did meet
>>> > our Oswald. Her superior said the man who came to the consulate was
>>> > not OUR Oswald. He was not tortured.
>>>
>>> You ignore all the details on his application that match known facts and
>>> support her account. It's his photo, his address, his signature, his
>>> passport number and details his recent FPCC activities in New Orleans,
>>> activities that are a matter of public record.
>>>
>>> > >Her story checks out against the records held in the Embassy in 1963
>>> > >and
>>> > >a
>>> > >second copy, date stamped 10 October, 1963, that made it all the way
>>> > >to
>>> > >Cuba and wasn't available until 1978.
>>>
>>> > Azcue on photos on visas:
>>>
>>> > Senor AZCUE. Truly, this photograph is one that I saw for the first
>>> > time when the honorable U.S. committee members came to Cuba in April
>>> > of this year, and I was surprised that I believe that it was not the
>>> > same person. Fifteen years had gone by so it is very difficult for me
>>> > to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical form. But my
>>> > belief is that this gentleman was not, is not, the person or the
>>> > individual who went to the consulate.
>>>
>>> Well Mirabel, whose signature appears on one of the versions of the visa
>>> application, doesn't agree. That is Duran, Mirabel and the available
>>> material evidence, in the form of the visa application and Oswald's
>>> later
>>> letter, against Azcue's recall. Your argument needs something more to
>>> back
>>> it up, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> > >She says in her WC statement that she gave her name and phone number
>>> > >to
>>> > >Oswald when she met him and her name and phone number are written in
>>> > >Oswald's notebook, in Oswald's handwriting.
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately, this is not evidence our Oswald visited the Cuban
>>> > Consulate.
>>>
>>> It's more physical evidence that he was there. You, on the other hand,
>>> appear to have nothing more than witness recall to support your
>>> argument.
>>> Your argument is weak.
>>>
>>> > >She picks out Oswald's photo from the HSCA photo book as being the
>>> > >man
>>> > >she
>>> > >met.
>>>
>>> > Too bad she cannot be considered a reliable witness.
>>>
>>> That's your opinion. Physical evidence supports her, including Oswald's
>>> own handwritten and typewritten words.
>>>
>>> You should start producing some physical evidence that it WASN'T Oswald
>>> to
>>> support your position, Peter.
>>>
>>> Accepting tomnln's *interpretations* of what she said to the HSCA is not
>>> a
>>> very wise idea if you're trying to prove Oswald wasn't the man she met.
>>> The HSCA certainly concluded that that was what she meant. She met
>>> Oswald.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tim Brennan
>>> Sydney, Australia
>>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>

Contact Information  tomnln@cox.net