The Truth That WCR Believers Run From... #16

[Ben Holmes]

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.

Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.

That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.

The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.

Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.

Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.

So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.

Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
this is quite imprecise, but may prove surprising:

Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16

Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.

[Donald Willis]

Post by Ben Holmes
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.
Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.
That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.
The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.
Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.
Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.
So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.
Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.

I enjoyed the give-and-take on this issue by Pat Speer and David Mantik on the edforum, several years ago. I tend to side with you and Mantik, but PS had some points, though I can't recall the details...
dcw
(P.S. Mother of God, is this the end of alt.conspiracy.jfk?!)

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:39:17 -0800 (PST), Donald Willis

Post by Donald Willis

Post by Ben Holmes
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.
Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.
That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.
The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.
Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.
Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.
So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.
Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.

I enjoyed the give-and-take on this issue by Pat Speer and David Mantik on the edforum, several years ago. I tend to side with you and Mantik, but PS had some points, though I can't recall the details...
dcw

Let's not forget the really horrific lying on this topic by McAdams...

He tried to pretend that I was talking about *mass*.

And while you can speculate about mass - it's not a topic you can
support in two dimensions. Of course, McAdams was a liar and a
coward..

Post by Donald Willis
(P.S. Mother of God, is this the end of alt.conspiracy.jfk?!)

Believers will have to pony up to spout their lies...

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.
Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.
That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.
The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.
Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.
Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.
So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.
Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.

What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?
And what is yours? And why should we accept your nonn-expert opinion over their expert opinion?

Please explain. Make a valid, reasoned rgument relying on the evidence, and explain why the experts missed everything you think is important.

Or ignore all that, call me names, and change the subject. I have a pretty good idea what route you’ll take, based on your posting history.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview the 44 witnesses who said they saw a gaping exit hole at the right rear of the President's head ?
Loading Image...

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview Naval photographer Robert Knudsen, who told the HSCA in 1978 that he was ordered to take SEVEN sets of autopsy photos ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666#relPageId=12

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview mortician Tom Robinson, who told the HSCA in 1977 that there was a quarter inch entrance hole in the right temple and a large exit wound at the rear of the head ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview Saundra Spencer, the woman at NPIC who developed the autopsy photos and told the ARRB that the photographic paper used in the "autopsy photos" currently in evidence was not the paper she used ? ( Deposition of Saundra Spencer to the ARRB, 6/5/97, pgs. 45-46 )

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, who told the ARRB in 1997 that he was shown two conflicting sets of autopsy photos, one with an entrance would in the temple and a gaping exit wound at the rear and one without ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=753#relPageId=2
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4

You know Hank, you're a typical Lone Nutter: you concentrate on one thing, but you never tell the whole story.
You're like that little gnat that tries to fly into my eye socket. No matter how much I wave you away, you're determined to get into that eye.
SMH

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview the 44 witnesses who said they saw a gaping exit hole at the right rear of the President's head ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/44-witnesses.jpg

No. Their expertise is not in interviewing witnesses. It's in conducting and reviewing autopsies. Why would you expect them to go outside their area of expertise? What value would their conclusions have there? I thought you considered yourself somewhat of an expert in what’s admissible? Would the Clark panel’s conclusions about those witnesses you inquire about be admissible?

If not, why bring them up? To change the subject?

Post by Gil Jesus
Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview Naval photographer Robert Knudsen, who told the HSCA in 1978 that he was ordered to take SEVEN sets of autopsy photos ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666#relPageId=12

Same question as above. He can say whatever he likes. Can you establish he was at the autopsy?
Why do you cite recollections from 15 years after the fact? Do you think recollections from 15 years after the fact are solid evidence?

Post by Gil Jesus
Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview mortician Tom Robinson, who told the HSCA in 1977 that there was a quarter inch entrance hole in the right temple and a large exit wound at the rear of the head ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1

Same question as above. He can say whatever he likes. Why do you cite recollections from 14 years after the fact? Do you think recollections from 15 years after the fact are solid evidence?

Post by Gil Jesus
Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview Saundra Spencer, the woman at NPIC who developed the autopsy photos and told the ARRB that the photographic paper used in the "autopsy photos" currently in evidence was not the paper she used ? ( Deposition of Saundra Spencer to the ARRB, 6/5/97, pgs. 45-46 )

Same question as above. She can say whatever he likes. Why do you cite recollections from 30 years after the fact? Do you think recollections from 30 years after the fact are solid evidence? Can you establish she developed any such photos?

Post by Gil Jesus
Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, who told the ARRB in 1997 that he was shown two conflicting sets of autopsy photos, one with an entrance would in the temple and a gaping exit wound at the rear and one without ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=753#relPageId=2
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4

Same question as above. He can say whatever he likes. Why do you cite recollections from 30 years after the fact? Do you think recollections from 30 years after the fact are solid evidence? Can you establish he saw any such photos?

Post by Gil Jesus
You know Hank, you're a typical Lone Nutter: you concentrate on one thing, but you never tell the whole story.

Your questions make no sense. They rely on recollections, not evidence, and you’re asking why experts in autopsies didn't go outside their area of expertise.

Let me break this news to you: expert’s opinions have no value outside their area of expertise. Yes, that’s right, asking if a paleontologist believes in the multiverse is meaningless. And asking if medical experts in forensic pathology interviewed witnesses is likewise meaningless. They reviewed the extant autopsy photos and x-rays and reach3d the same conclusion as the autopsists who had the body in front of them on the night of the assassination. Two shots, from above and behind.

Post by Gil Jesus
You're like that little gnat that tries to fly into my eye socket. No matter how much I wave you away, you're determined to get into that eye.
SMH

Sorry if the evidence blinds you to the correct conclusions. You keep on believing in 15- & 30-year later recollections if that makes you feel better. But the facts don't care about your feelings.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:23:36 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

Did the Clark Panel "experts" interview the 44 witnesses who said they saw a gaping exit hole at the right rear of the President's head ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/44-witnesses.jpg

No. Their expertise is not in interviewing witnesses. It's in conducting and reviewing autopsies. Why would you expect them to go outside their area of expertise?

This... right here... shows the shocking cowardice of Huckster
Sienzant.

Indeed, Huckster won't tell you the total time taken by the Clark
Panel in their "investigation"... it would reveal too much.

Nor will he answer this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

That the photographs and x-rays matched the autopsy report.

My turn:

What did the Clark Panel "experts" say about whether or not the photographs and x-rays had been tampered with ?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

That the photographs and x-rays matched the autopsy report.
What did the Clark Panel "experts" say about whether or not the photographs and x-rays had been tampered with ?

The HSCA photographic panel of experts answered that question. The Clark medical panel had no expertise in that area, and their conclusions would have no value, and would not be admissible in court.

Why do you insist on asking questions about things that aren’t admissible and have no value?

Speaking of leaving things out, and never telling the whole story, why do you not mention that the x-rays and autopsy photos were validated by the HSCA?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:28:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

That the photographs and x-rays matched the autopsy report.
What did the Clark Panel "experts" say about whether or not the photographs and x-rays had been tampered with ?

The HSCA photographic panel of experts answered that question.

ROTFLMAO!!! The HSCA revealed that the photos didn't match the only
camera used by the hospital.

Post by Hank Sienzant
The Clark medical panel had no expertise in that area, and their
conclusions would have no value, and would not be admissible in court.
Why do you insist on asking questions about things that aren’t admissible and have no value?

Why do you insist on running away?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Speaking of leaving things out, and never telling the whole story,
why do you not mention that the x-rays and autopsy photos were
validated by the HSCA?

You're lying again.

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Speaking of leaving things out, and never telling the whole story, why do you not mention that the x-rays and autopsy photos were validated by the HSCA?

Probably because the HSCA lied in its report on the President's head wound, saying the Dallas doctors were wrong about the exit wound at the rear and the autopsy witnesses were correct that the exit wound was in the front of the right side. But interviews with the autopsy witnesses showed they agreed with the Dallas doctors. That wasn't revealed until the mid-90s.
That means that the HSCA interviewed the autopsy witnesses then misrepresented what they said in their report.
In other words, they lied, just like you.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HSCA-aguilar_groden.mp4

Probably because the HSCA interviewed the 44 witnesses who said they saw a gaping exit hole at the right rear of the President's head.
And it ignored them.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/44-witnesses.jpg

Probably because the HSCA interviewed Naval photographer Robert Knudsen, who told them that he was ordered to take SEVEN sets of autopsy photos.
And it ignored him.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666#relPageId=12

Probably because the HSCA interviewed mortician Tom Robinson, who told them that there was a quarter inch entrance hole in the right temple and a large exit wound at the rear of the head.
And it ignored him.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1

Probably because the HSCA never interviewed Saundra Spencer, the woman at NPIC who developed the autopsy photos and told the ARRB that the photographic paper used in the "autopsy photos" currently in evidence was not the paper she used. ( Deposition of Saundra Spencer to the ARRB, 6/5/97, pgs. 45-46 )

Probably because the HSCA never interviewed White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, who told the ARRB in 1997 that he was shown two conflicting sets of autopsy photos, one with an entrance would in the temple and a gaping exit wound at the rear and one without.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=753#relPageId=2
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4

You not only have a problem comprehending what you read, you also rely on the most unreliable sources of information.
You really need to brush up on this topic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:06:32 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Speaking of leaving things out, and never telling the whole story, why do you not mention that the x-rays and autopsy photos were validated by the HSCA?

Probably because the HSCA lied in its report on the President's head wound, saying the Dallas doctors were wrong about the exit wound at the rear and the autopsy witnesses were correct that the exit wound was in the front of the right side. But interviews with the autopsy witnesses showed they agreed with the Dallas doctors. That wasn't revealed until the mid-90s.
That means that the HSCA interviewed the autopsy witnesses then misrepresented what they said in their report.
In other words, they lied, just like you.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HSCA-aguilar_groden.mp4

I've posted this one many times, and not a **SINGLE** believer has
ever addressed it.

Much detail to be found here:
https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

You can't find a single believer, Huckster included, who can admit
that the HSCA flat lied... or defend this obvious lie.

Post by Gil Jesus
Probably because the HSCA interviewed the 44 witnesses who said they saw a gaping exit hole at the right rear of the President's head.
And it ignored them.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/44-witnesses.jpg
Probably because the HSCA interviewed Naval photographer Robert Knudsen, who told them that he was ordered to take SEVEN sets of autopsy photos.
And it ignored him.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666#relPageId=12
Probably because the HSCA interviewed mortician Tom Robinson, who told them that there was a quarter inch entrance hole in the right temple and a large exit wound at the rear of the head.
And it ignored him.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1
Probably because the HSCA never interviewed Saundra Spencer, the woman at NPIC who developed the autopsy photos and told the ARRB that the photographic paper used in the "autopsy photos" currently in evidence was not the paper she used. ( Deposition of Saundra Spencer to the ARRB, 6/5/97, pgs. 45-46 )
Probably because the HSCA never interviewed White House photographer Joe O'Donnell, who told the ARRB in 1997 that he was shown two conflicting sets of autopsy photos, one with an entrance would in the temple and a gaping exit wound at the rear and one without.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=753#relPageId=2
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4
You not only have a problem comprehending what you read, you also rely on the most unreliable sources of information.
You really need to brush up on this topic.

And be capable of defending your faith.

Critics can... believers can't.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Ben Holmes
And be capable of defending your faith.
Critics can... believers can't.

Hank seems to be stuck in a time warp that ends in 1978 with the HSCA.
He also seems to be completely oblivious to any documents or testimony declassified by the ARRB.

There have been a lot of revelations in the case with the ARRB ( including that the HSCA LIED about the gaping exit wound at the back of the President's head AND the fact that the technician who developed
the autopsy photos said the paper used in the photos currently in evidence is not the paper she used ).

The "more knowledgeable one" seems to be completely unaware of them and unable to discuss them.

SMH

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 02:27:15 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
And be capable of defending your faith.
Critics can... believers can't.

Hank seems to be stuck in a time warp that ends in 1978 with the HSCA.

I'd argue that he doesn't even view the HSCA honestly. He's **NEVER**
addressed the lies told by the HSCA that I've pointed out.

Post by Gil Jesus
He also seems to be completely oblivious to any documents or testimony declassified by the ARRB.
There have been a lot of revelations in the case with the ARRB ( including that the HSCA LIED about the gaping exit wound at the back of the President's head AND the fact that the technician who developed
the autopsy photos said the paper used in the photos currently in evidence is not the paper she used ).
The "more knowledgeable one" seems to be completely unaware of them and unable to discuss them.
SMH

Oh, I'm quite sure he's well aware of these problems... he's just too
dishonest to be able to address them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 04:52:56 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

That the photographs and x-rays matched the autopsy report.

But they didn't... of course.

Post by Gil Jesus
What did the Clark Panel "experts" say about whether or not the photographs and x-rays had been tampered with ?

You should ask him how long these Clark Panel experts reviewed the
evidence.

Of course, Huckster's a coward:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:24:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.
Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this
case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered
with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.
That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated
for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has
been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone
assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply
*RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness
of such a statement without destroying their own faith.
The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has
always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous
problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that
sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.
Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen
the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel
did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in
1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy
was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could
see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was
twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.
Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be
to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.
And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A
BULLET FRAGMENT.
So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &
HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.
Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school
geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably
still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was
roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought
existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.
Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.

What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the photographs and x-rays?

Not what you'd accept.

Or be able to defend.

Post by Hank Sienzant
And what is yours? And why should we accept your nonn-expert opinion over their expert opinion?

Because my non-expert opinion is something that can be defended...
(and is held by other experts) which explains why McAdams flat lied.

Amusingly, you can't defend McAdam's lie either...

You can't defend the expert opinion, OR ADMIT THAT EXPERTS CONTRADICT
EACH OTHER ON THIS ISSUE, nor will you try.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Please explain.

Already have, many times in the past.

It's amusing that you can run from a majority of these posts, then
jump in and complain about one small topic.

But you're a coward, aren't you Huckster?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Make a valid, reasoned rgument relying on the evidence, and explain why the experts missed everything you think is important.

Explain why experts differ on this issue. Once, of course, you admit
that they do.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Or ignore all that, call me names, and change the subject. I have a pretty good idea what route you’ll take, based on your posting history.

Or ignore the posts you can't explain, AS YOU'VE BEEN DOING, and run
away again. I have a pretty good idea what route you'll take, based on
your posting history.

You've been running for months from this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?