Wrong it is not relevant. They made only a casual observation and in determined no evidence. The autopsy did find evidence and proved the bullet came from above and behind and casual observation does not challenge that fact. What you claimed was that the WINDSHIELD was destroyed and it was not and that is proven fact. All of your claims are empty assertions which you have never supported with any evidence. You have repeatedly claimed that the Warren Commission lied or omitted evidence or covered up the truth. Yet despite being asked several times to produce just one specific example with evidence you run away and never answer and merely repeat your assertion which is based in total ignorance
That "casual observation" was made independently by every ER physician, well acquainted with gun shot wounds, that was on duty that day when the president was brought in I realize giving you actual evidence in citations is pointless because you instantly reject everything that doesn't serve your agenda (which is an inherently dishonest act) but at least one of us (me) should provide proof. http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm It sure won't be you! You are just plain wrong and I know I've provided a citation that demonstrates this before, just as I've done with information about Kennedy in Parkland hospital. (http://ss100x.com/) The time line of how Kennedy's limo was brought in and stripped of every bit of useful information of the coup you seek to cover up is well worth noting but only an honest person will find this to be true. Others wishing to perpetuate a whitewash will ignore or object to something they cannot cover up. That I should have to bring in evidence yet again is disgraceful and demonstrates the sort of person I'm dealing with (nice job removing all the vulgar insults yesterday...did someone notify you?)
Wrong it was only made by some of them on duty that day. They were acquainted with trying to REPAIR gun shot wounds and treating the victims of gun shot wounds with the intent of saving lives. They and no acquaintance or experience of any sort with examining gun shot wounds to determine such facts as what type of gun caused the wound or where the shot came from. This is why their observation is irrelevant and does not challenge the autopsy no matter how much you wish they did. You have never provided any relevant citation proving a lie or error or omission from the Warren Commission <Mod Edit.> There is no such time line and nothing was covered up from the limo. Now it is known you have never read the report yet you constantly clam such things and cannot even point to one such example. So just name one lie or omission. You have never brought in evidence in the first place <Mod Edit> so give it a try. There was no coup and no evidence of one no matter how many films you have watched which create such a fictional story
Are you trying to tell me a whole staff of experienced ER doctors can't see when the back of someone's head is missing (as my citation, which you predictably ignored, demonstrates)? You've got to be on something. Of course I have. But when have facts mattered to you? You ignored the citation again and that's clear but I knew it was fruitless when I posted them.
I have been very clear time and again. Their casual observation is not evidence of the bullet's direction or source. It is merely an observation of a wound which is also not evidence of the bullet's direction or source. Their testimony is irrelevant. You have never provided such a citation. You have never provided evidence. <Mod Edit> You will not provide evidence because you cannot and you will never answer any question <Mod Edit.>
Clearly wrong, certainly. All the doctors knew about exit wounds even if you don't. Only to someone who isn't interested in the truth. The citation is clearly in post #202 (there are actually two of them there so not only are you very wrong again but you can't even be bothered to pretend you are being honest, which you are not). <Mod Edit> I only wish I could say what I truly think of your constant trolling.
Clearly right and proven so and you know it. They identified a large wound not a specific exit wound and they made only brief casual observations. The autopsy relied on specific expertise and evidence which they did not have at Parkland. It is you not interested in the Truth only your dogma like beliefs. No I am correct and you have never presented any citation of evidence to support your claim in that or any other post
Please. Don't be absurd! You haven't even looked at the citation (didn't even know it existed until I pointed it out) because you couldn't be more wrong in what you claim. That's what makes your posts so objectionable. It is their sheer dishonesty and what do you mean by claiming the doctors at Parkland didn't have the "specific expertise and evidence" to note a giant gaping hole in the back of JFK's skull? You surely must be insane to claim such a thing. Are you claiming they somehow lost the ability to see and note a large hole in the president's cranium? Hilarious transference there. :Like the two citations I presented for you (#202) that you said did not exist? Don't be so absurd.
you presented no citation of any evidence or answered any question and in fact all you did was post a detai;led discussion of the limo which proved ..............................nothing. That is not a citation. I have asked over and over again for evidence and you have NEVER provided any at all. I have asked over and over again for specific lies and omissions from the WC and you never answer. The Parkland doctors had no expertise to determine or evidence to indicate that the wound was an exit wound. A large wound does not always and automatically prove an exit wound sorry but that hact has been prov. No it is not transferrence it is accurate about you. Unlike you I am not dishonest I have researched BOTH sides of the argument for many years. I have studied Jim Marrs books, David Lifton's book, Mark Lane's books, Fletcher Prouty's Book, Jim Garrison's book and many others. I have looked repeatedly at the films including documentaries and he absurd fictional disaster by Oliver Stone. But I also paid attention to the other side. Unlike you I read the Warren Commission report and Posner's book and Reclaiming history and some others. You strictly and exclusively cherry pick only from the side you support and never try to do proper research which is why you are always crushingly defeated by evidence/ No it is not transference you and the other conspiracy thoerists are the only brainwashed ones living in denial.
It demonstrated how the Secret Service had JFK's bullet riddled limo cleaned and all the evidence of the assassination removed. Your constant denials don't do a thing to change that. Not a citation you wish to have to deal with anyway. That's pathetic bull crap and dishonest as hell! When I do provide eye witness testimony from Parkland Hospital and at Ford's Rogue Plant in Detroit, Michigan where the Secret Service had brought the limo for major renovation removing body panels, the windshield and upholstery destroying vital evidence of the killing you merely reject it all out of hand. I don't even get into other telling evidence because I know it's pointless dealing with a dishonest party. There are dozens of telling facts but for two at hand Dallas Police had to install three shims on the scope of the so called murder weapon Manlicher-Carcano rifle so it could be test fired as it was impossible to sight it without these adjustments. And the fact that tests for paraffin gun powder residue were negative when administered on Lee Oswald by Dallas Police...How does a man who supposedly gunned down JFK from a school book depository perch use a rifle that had no functioning scope and no gunpowder residue on his cheeks? This will all be denied however without any evidence to the contrary so why bring it up? Small entry wound on Kennedy's right temple....large exit would in the back of his head. Every doctor at Parkland agreed. Anybody with a grade school science education knows as a bullet travels through a body tissue, blood, bone and other matter is displaced (that word again) is pushed ahead of the bullet leaving a larger exit wound due to the force of all this matter being expelled by the bullet through the body. Are you fool enough to contradict elementary physics? You already have been once or twice. Pure transference on your part and there are other posters who have noted the same. You have a reputation...and not a good one! You don't know a thing about what I've studied and not! And I've warned you before about making up stories about I what I do and do not know or have studied. But of course you continue to rape the truth with no regard whatsoever for facts and accuracy.
You a Your information is simply false. Explain how the secret service destroyed all the evidence when in fact the windshield and several other pieces of the limo were removed and stored and maintained AS evidence for the Warren Commission and THEY WERE. This is why you have not provided evidence <Mod Edit>. You have yet to offer one example of a lie or omission or cover up from the WC so go ahead NAME ONE. I have dealt with every one of their claims and proven them to BE FALSE. The eyewitness testimony from Parkland is irrelevant BECAUSE they were ER doctors not pathologists and they performed no autopsy. A casual observation does not not trump expert investigation. <Mod Edit> It was the FBI not the Dallas police which machined the shims for the weapons scope and they were mounted to the weapon not the scope. It IS TRUE that without this modification the weapon could not be accurately fired with the scope. But what you ignore is simple fact that the scope was an unneeded decoration. The iron sights on the rifle were adequate to the task at close range and open iron sites were precisely what Oswald was trained to use in the USMC. In other words you are wrong about it being impossible unless one strictly used the telescopic site. Ignoring the telescopic site and using the standard iron sites was easily accomplished by someone with Oswald's skill. In addition although it is speculation the whole issue of the scope logically explains why he missed the first shot. HE may well have used the telescopic site for his first shot which missed. Realizing he missed it is very probable he would have simply ignored the telescopic site and settled back into his training using the built in iron rifle sites and therefore hit the next two shots. To answer your question about paraffin test it is first necessary to correct your false premise. The premise is that paraffin tests always work or are reliable and they are NOT. Even before the JFK shooting J Edgar Hoover had issued memo's to his investigative agents informing them that such tests could not be used as evidence in court because they were too unreliable, One simply had to wipe ones sleeve across ones cheek to remove enough powder residue that the test could not detect any. The test was really only used as a secondary form of confirmation because it was known and proven that a positive result could enhance other evidence but a negative result proved nothing. That is your answer. You just stated <Mod Edit> about the doctors at parkland. They did see a massive wound but none of them ever claimed that there was a small wound on his temple and in fact the autopsy and photographs irrefutably prove that there was no such wound at his temple. You have yet to quote a law of physics to support your claim even though you keep erroneously mentioning physics. The bullet entered a the back of the head to the left of the center line and exited on the right rear side. That is fact proven and irrefutable despite your uneducated attempts to suggest other wise. <Mod Edit> <Mod Edit> You have been debunked and destroyed point by point for each and every one of your claims. SO what do you have? And yes I do know what you have studied and looked at you have even backhandedly admitted it. You have only cherry picked select movies to support a belief and you know I am right about that
Are you disputing the claims that Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission made about this one "magic" bullet (it was first called the magic bullet by commission members Hale Boggs, Richard Russell and John Cooper who thought the invention was absurd and Russell asked that their objections be footnoted in the report, though they never were)? It seems there is finally something so bizarre and patently false that even you try to distance yourself from it which is encouraging though there are so many other falsehoods in the fairy tale of Lee Harvey Oswald and the shooting of the president it's not really fair for that one lie only to be noted while the hundreds of others are left out.
Wrong the claim was first made by conspiracy theorist Jim Garrison. You cannot name a specific lie in the WC you have only named one lie about the WC from conspiracy theorists
So you are clearly wrong and will not admit it, you typical m.o., but are you actually claiming that single bullet that is called the magic bullet did all the things the Warren Commission credits it with doing? Really? Seriously? That's insane.
No I am clearly correct and proving you wrong by evidence. The WC only demonstrated that the second bullet struck two men which is not magical they attributed nothing magical to it. I dare you to quote the section where they stated it changed course to hit two men
A cowardly fake challenge. The commission does have to state in those exact words, which they would never chose because what they claim is just too absurd, when instead what they claim happened, in effect, is the equivalent of a magic bullet! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory Even if you could resolve that blunder (that's IF you could) there is still the bigger problem of a bullet that smashed through the clothing, flesh and bone of two adult males and comes out with minimal, if any, actual damage to the bullet itself! As already stated, there were Warren Commission members who themselves did not believe the saga of the magic bullet. With good reason.
Wrong the cowardly behavior is running from the challenge. They did not invent the magic bullet theory many conspiracy theorists di and it is a lie which you naively fall for. I will make it easy on you cite the quote where the WC even describes a bullet behaving abnormally. One more time listen carefully it was in fact deformed and missing mass consistent with a bullet causing the wounds it did. Your claim to the contrary is false
The deformation was on the underside of the bullet, struck by the firing pin. That's weak lie number one. EVERY round ever fired has that in common and says nothing at all about the condition of the rest of the bullet. The missing mass was extremely minimal at best (just 1.5% of the original average weight) and not at all consistent with a bullet that had just supposedly passed through the clothing, muscle mass and bone of two adult males. Weak excuse number two. Not only that but the magic bullet had no markings, blood, clothing or tissue residue one would typically expect to find on it after having done what Arlen Specter alleges. No dice, Warren Commission Boy!
First of all firing pins never strike bullets. Second of all you are quite wrong. Bullets can be deformed and damaged on any part of their structure as this one was. the bullet was a tumbler and well documented as one before the shooting. Yes it did in fact have all the characteristics of such a bullet. You are just reaching at straws and dreaming crap up again. Now name a lie from the WC
I didn't mean to encourage you, as you seem absolutely unhinged and unable to deal with facts rationally. Yes, bullets can be, and are, damaged and deformed depending on what they slam into and through....like bone. That's sort of my whole point. You would never think to look at the magic bullet that it had hit into and ricocheted off of rib and radius bone matter,and traversed into and out of both Kennedy's and Connally's bodies passing through fifteen layers of clothing, seven layers of skin, fifteen inches of tissue and then simply dropped onto a stretcher not used by Connally at at in a pristine condition that gives the lie to the Warren Commission invention. Only a clown would believe in such a story.
