Gary Mack.Traiter and disgrace to america and patriotic americans

Facts are like krytonite to these retards.

 

Take another look t the bullet. It was no longer bullet-shaped. It was boomerang-shaped.

All bets are off.

 

Nonsense. There is a mountain of evidence for a conspiracy.

 

There is not, really.

The blood spray, for instance, only make sense to people who are ignorant about gunshot wounds.

When I fire my Carcano into a plastic jug full of water at 100 yards, the water goes out the back and the jug moves toward me. Try it if you are too dim to grasp the concept.

 

There is no evidence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK which is why every one attempting to aruge there was a conspiracy on this forum has been ruined.

The mountin of evidence points to Oswald acting alone.

But please feel free to refute this with evidence.

One suggestion is read over all of the threads in this forum to see what evidence has already been presented and debunked.

 

Over 40 medical witnesses observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head. Entrance wounds are generally small; exit wounds large. This wound was likely caused by a shot from the front.

"Had I been allowed to testify, I would have told them that there is no doubt in my mind that the bullet that killed President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll area...

The entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing...based on my experience with trauma to the head from gunshots, I knew that only a high velocity bullet from a rifle could dissect a cranium that way. Part of his brain, the cerebellum was dangling from the back of his head...

...From the damage I saw there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium the missle obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum...

The hundreds of trauma cases involving gunshots that I have seen and treated since 1963 further convince me that my conclusions about President Kennedy's wounds were correct....The men on the Commission heard exactly what they wanted to hear, or what they were instructed to hear and then reported what they wanted to report or what they were instructed to report.... the Warren Report (is) a fable, a virtual insult to the intelligence of the American People."

From: "JFK Conspiracy of Silence" by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D.

That's one of about 40 others. A slam dunk for conspiracy.

 

So you completely ignore my suggestion to read through the threads and repeat what has been debunked.

Exit wounds and entrance wounds to the head are not typically as you state and in fact what proves this casual observation by a few witnesses false is no entrance wound on the front of the head.

The autopsy was done by experts who determiend the wound in the back of the head as an entrance wound consistent with a shot from above and behind. No evidence refutes this finding. A few witnesses ( it was never 40 ) do not refute this as none of them EXAMINED the bacl of the head. They were in Parkland hospital trying to operate on JFK to save his life he was on his back which obscured the wound in question.

The quotes you have in your post constitute opinion only NOT evidence.

Once again there is no evidence of a conspiracy. If you disagree try something which has not been beaten to death

 

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html

And more than a few witnesses observed the large blow-out and up to 40 were on the scene medical witnesses. Here is another:

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

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

As to the entrance wound, Press Secretary Malcomb Kilduff stated:

"Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” Kilduff, K's Press sec.


http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b:reasontobelieve

Your rebuttal does not constitute evidence, but these multiple witness statements are indeed overwhelming evidence of a shot from the front and conspiracy.

 

I stated facts I stated no rebuttle.

Fact one eyewitness testimony is always the weakest and most unreliable of evidence.

Fact two it was not 40 witnesses it was a few you are wrong. None of them were experts in bullet wounds and all of them only had a casual glance at his body which was on it's back obscuring the very head wound in question.

Fact three you mentioned exit wounds to the body in your description not to the head which is different.

Fact four such an exit wound would have absolutely required a frontal entrance wound which did not exist.



You have no evidence of a conspiracy

 

Really? Then in your opinion, what is the "most reliable" evidence. Say, for example, in the contention that LHO shot the President?????What is the very best evidence for that contention????

 

It doesn't take an "expert in bullet wounds" to observe a large hole in the back of the head And the ER docs had seen hundreds of such bullet wounds. And here is yet another witness to confirm:

)DORIS NELSON, RN was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was
interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was
neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's
wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however,
journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his
head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and
put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy
of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true.
Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back
there. (Emphasis added) It was blown away. Some of his head was blown
away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason
I. p. 454)

 

I did not say it takes an expert to identify a large hole.

What you are ignoring is that it takes an expert to determine what caused that hole and what direction the bullet was traveling in.

The autopsy EXPERTS proved these casual observations of a hole are nothing more than opinion based on a casual glance with no in depth examination.

 

The physical evidence is always the most reliabel evidence. Not just in this case but in any investigation or case.

Eyewitsses of UFO's for example are meaningless worthless evidence. A scientific standard to follow is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The conclusion that LHO acted alone is not extraordinary it is in fact more logical than a conspiracy. Occams razor applies. the simplest explanation is usually the correct one and the simplest explanation is LHO got lucky and scored two hits out of three shots on Kennedy.

The evidence of this is overwhelming. Unlike conspiracy theorists the Warren Commission followed the evidence to a logical conclusion. The conspiracy crowd starts out with a desired outcome and cherry picks the evidence to fit that pre ordained conclusion.

Now what evidence you ask.

First of all his rifle proven and documented to be his, and his prints were found on it. No other rifle was found that day. Three shell casings proven to have been fired through said rifle and also with his prints. No other expended shell casing ever found. He kept his rifle at Ruth Paynes house in a blanket and fibers from that blanket were found on the bag which was identified as the bad which he used to wrap the rifle in claiming it was curtain rods.

Second we have physical evidence of three bullets to include two recovered bullets which were proven through chemical testing to have been fired through HIS rifle. The third struck the curb and left no pieces large enough to recover but the impact scar on the curb and the superficial wound to James Tague proves it was fired. That is all physical evidence of three shots and no other bullet or evideence exists anywere of a another bullet or shot which ruins the conspiracy theories. The film and photographic evidence records evidence of the same conclusion and shows no evidence of another shooter. The autopsy evidence shows that the wounds were perfectly consistent with this evidence and not with any other theory. The damage to the limosine from gun fire is also perfectly consistent with this evidence and not with any other theory.

Finally there is Oswalds behavior. He is the only employee of the TSBD to flee the scene and not return he is the only one to shoot a police officer in an attempt to evade capture.

FInally we have the eyewitnesses and ear witnesses. As i have noted they are the least reliable and valid of evidence but the fact is even as weak evidence the vast majority of them SUPPORT the evidence listed above and do not refute it. Yes some witnesses saw and heard something different but that is normal which is why witness testimony is not the most solid. When multiple witnesses are involved someone always hears and sees things differently than others even contradicting each other.

In this case ( like any criminals case ) you know you have the truth when most witnesses generally agree with the physical evidence.

It is not contention that Oswald shot Kennedy it is fact

 

But I only asked for your one best piece of evidence. If it is the rifle with his prints on it, how do you know it is his rifle? Moreover, the FBI stated that there were in fact no discernible prints on it. And it was not the only rifle found unless we are to believe that the sworn statements of the detectives that it was a Mauser, were lying. The Black Operation Perps could just as well decided to set up LHO as a Patsy by creating a paper trail to the Carcarno and planting the rifle. Oswald would have no reason to do this, since he could have simply purchased a rifle over the counter with no paper trail. Plus, all of your alleged "facts" would have to be sworn to by witnesses -- just like any other eye-witness, and thus, subject to mistakes and or falsifications. Everything in a court of law deals with "witnesses" as does the Court of Public Opinion.

 

It does not take an "expert" to witness and define a hole, unless we are dealing with characters from Sesame Street.

 

Actually yes it does since in head wounds entrance and exit wounds are not easily identifiable by laymen.

 

You did not ask for ONE piece of evidence read your own post again.

We know it was his rifle due to the paper trail he established when buying it and due to the fact that many including his wife saw him practice with it many times.

You are wrong his prints were found on it period.

You are also wrong about the sworn statements of the detectives. None of them made a sworn statement that it was a mauser. The first officers who recovered it merely misidentified it as a Mauser which is not unusual. The Manlicher Carcano and Many models made by Mauser bear a superficial resemblence to each other and in fact the very same officers who mis - identified it clearly stated they were simply mistaken.

It was in fact the only rifle found. There is no evidence of black op perps. Oswald could have done many this but it in fact makes more sense for him to buy the rifle through mail order which left a paper trail.

Buying a rifle over the counter requires shopping at gun stores. Oswald had no car. He also had a minimum wage income and a family to support. In light of those circumstances it makes more sense for him to order the cheapest rifle he could get and have it mailed to him.

Um no the existence of a rifle is not based on witnesses. It is a thing not something described which is what witnesses do. Neither is the paper trail or the evidence that it was his or that no other rifle was found.

Physical evidence proves the case in a court of law not witnesses. Public opinion is meaningless.

 

"Latent fingerprint recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5 millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.... It is of no value for identification purposes."

HSCA Appendix to Hearings - Volume VIII

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0126b.htm

 

Det. Seymour Weitzman's sworn statement: "...it was a 7.65 Mauser..."

http://www.oocities.org/whiskey99a/weitz.jpg

 

If public opinion is meaningless, does that include your opinions as well, or are they not public??

And, if you throw out all witness testimony in a court of law, then you wipe out America's entire system of jurisprudence and might as well go back to trial by ordeal or no trial at all.

 

No one said anything about the trigger guard specifically. The trigger guard is a thin strip of metal which often will not have an entire identifiable fingerprint. The rest of the weapon however is different.

When one dis - assembles and cleans the weapon one will handle it. Oswald owned and practiced with this weapon for quite some time and of course spent time cleaning dis- assembling and re- assembling it. His print was left on the underside of the barrel where the stock covers it. This means he left it there when cleaning it. The stock would have protected the print for quite sometime until the Dallas PD found it and positively matched it to Oswald. No other prints found on the weapon is to be expected. Even in the early 60s people watched movies and movies often informed people how the authorities use fingerprints to identify bad guys. Therefore it is no leap of imagination to conclude a person planning a murder would simply wipe down exterior of the murder weapon which takes only a second or two. Of course he missed the print on the barrel.

Nothing to see here except that the weapon was Oswald's, had his print on it, was the only one found at the murder scene and that is solid evidence which is what all conspiracy theorists lack

 

I was refering to your claim of the court of public opinion which is meaningless because majority opinion or consensus does not equal truth.

No one said anything about ignoring witness testimony. The fact is this witness testimony is the weakest of evidence. It is the physical evidence which proves something

 

I'll grant you produced a sworn affidavit which was made before all the facts were in. But weitzaman himself clarified this before the WC and simply pointed out that the rifle bears a superficial resemblence to a mauser ( it clearly does ) and this was merely an initial identification which is not unusual. No evidence of a lie or conspiracy. There was only one rifle found the chain of custody proves this.

 

As a police detective, Weitzman knew very well, that when you swear that something is true, it had better be true. And yet, while this former sporting goods dealer, made the 7.65 Mauser the ID, the Carcano actually had imprinted on the barrel "Made Italy, Cal 6.5". Moreover, Police Deputy Roger Craig said he saw the Cal number as 7.65. And Lt. Day also made the same ID. Some "mistake".

 

Prove it. Show me where the FBI claims there was any identifiable finger print on the rifle -- anywhere,