Discussion:
Hanky Panky asks: How do you explain a bullet entry wound in the neck but no exit?
(too old to reply)
Gil Jesus
2023-12-05 10:28:28 UTC
Permalink

JE Corbett
2023-12-05 13:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display. These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination. These were all handguns fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet. Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets. These examples also
don't mention the caliber of the bullets. A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.

You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.

Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit. Same problems as with your theory of an
entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense. None of your
arguments ever do. You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.

It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance. The arc of the bullet would prevent that. Are we
supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate
JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak ammunition, and then try to frame a guy
who owned a high powered rifle. Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-05 15:54:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. ust to watch Corbutt squirm.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quicly
acknowledge as true.
Post by JE Corbett
These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination.
No, you're lying again.
Post by JE Corbett
These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
Post by JE Corbett
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet.
Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
assertion?
Post by JE Corbett
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power
than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that
they ALWAYS be less powerful
Post by JE Corbett
These examples also
don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
So you have nothing to say, right?
Post by JE Corbett
A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the
video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.

The evidence shows otherwise.
Post by JE Corbett
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
Post by JE Corbett
Same problems as with your theory of an
entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as
fact.

They aren't.
Post by JE Corbett
None of your
arguments ever do.
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
Post by JE Corbett
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
Ditto above.
Post by JE Corbett
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!

This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.

You argue that:

A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.

What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come
to these "conclusions?"
Post by JE Corbett
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.

**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired
horizontally.

Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY
flawed.

It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
Post by JE Corbett
Are we
supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy
Can you name this fallacy?
Post by JE Corbett
that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK
Does it take a "thorough and omnipotent" conspiracy to murder someone?
Post by JE Corbett
and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald,
As opposed to some other schmuck? Who?
Post by JE Corbett
would use such weak ammunition
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Post by JE Corbett
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
Post by JE Corbett
who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
Post by JE Corbett
Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
Can you name this logical fallacy?

Your logical fallacies make zero sense as well - as most of America
agrees.
Gil Jesus
2023-12-05 18:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
acknowledge as true.
Exactly
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination.
No, you're lying again.
Post by JE Corbett
These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
Post by JE Corbett
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet.
Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
assertion?
Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.
He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
He speculates a lot.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
Post by JE Corbett
These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
So you have nothing to say, right?
So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
Speculation
Post by Ben Holmes
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.
The evidence shows otherwise.
Post by JE Corbett
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
Who has the problem, not me.

Siebert and O'Neill Report, pg. 5:
"Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?

From the HSCA interview of Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, pg.7:
"The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
That's huge.

In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.
Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
Plenty of time to remove bullets.
Post by Ben Holmes
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
They aren't.
Post by JE Corbett
None of your arguments ever do.
They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
Post by JE Corbett
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
Ditto above.
Post by JE Corbett
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
He's talking out of his ass as usual.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
Post by JE Corbett
Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
Post by Ben Holmes
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Yep.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
Post by JE Corbett
who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
Post by JE Corbett
Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
And yet you just can't stop responding, can you ?
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Your logical fallacies make zero sense as well - as most of America agrees.
JE Corbett
2023-12-05 20:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
acknowledge as true.
Exactly
You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered
handguns. I know that because I know the penetrating power of various types of
weapons. The bullet fired from Ruby's .38 Special was powerful enough to enter
the right side of his abdomen and bulge out his right side without breaking the
skin causing massive organ damage in between. A bullet that powerful would
have penetrated all the way through JFK's neck. A non-transiting bullet would
have to be much less powerful, such as a .22LR. One of the key factors in
penetrating power is bullet velocity. Most handguns don't have sufficient velocity
to maintain their trajectory at an appreciable distance. It's quite simple. A shallow
penetrating bullet is not compatible with a long range shot because the lower
velocity result in to much bullet drop. A low velocity bullet could on find the target
at short range.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination.
No, you're lying again.
Post by JE Corbett
These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
Post by JE Corbett
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet.
Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
assertion?
Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.
Corbett KNOWS these were handguns fired from close range because Corbett understands the physics.

Nice to see you finally figured out what my real name is. You seemed stumped for a while.
Post by Gil Jesus
He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
He speculates a lot.
I know that any shot fired from the front from either the GK or anywhere else in front that struck JFK in
the throat would have to be either a rifle or a high powered handgun because low velocity, low powered
firearms are not effective at distances for reasons already explained.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
The most powerful handguns are nowhere near as powerful as even medium powered rifles. The fastest
.44 Magnum bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1380 fps. That is a little over half of Oswald's Carcano. The
key question is not whether a rifle or handgun was used. It is a matter of bullet velocity and distance of
the shot. You need velocity for bullet to hold its trajectory for any appreciable distance and such
velocity is going to result in deep penetration. The two go hand in hand.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
So you have nothing to say, right?
So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
Quit trying to reason. You suck at it.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
Speculation
No, that is a fact. I explained the penetration made by Ruby's .38 Special which he fired at near point blank into Oswald's
abdomen.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
It's called deductive reasoning. That leaves you out.

"Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false."

The key word in the definition is "logical". Giltardo is incapable of this which is why he probably should not even try to engage
in deductive reasoning.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.
The evidence shows otherwise.
The person who made the above statements is a notorious liar.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
Who has the problem, not me.
So you have no explanation for how you could have two entrance wounds, no exit wounds and no bullets found in the body.
You simply ignore this conundrum as you do with all inconvenient facts.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
The above statement is not incompatible with an exit wound in the throat. For one, JFK was in a different anotomical
position when the bullet struck than when he was on the autopsy table. He was waving to the crowd when the bullet hit
as opposed to at his side on the autopsy table. This would change the position of the muscles in the upper back. In
addition there would be swelling and rigormortis setting in.
rig·or mor·tis
[ˌriɡər ˈmôrdəs]
NOUN
MEDICINE
stiffening of the joints and muscles of a body a few hours after death, usually lasting from one to four days.

The stiffening of the back muscles would be sufficient to make passage of a probe difficult.
Post by Gil Jesus
"The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
That's huge.
No it's not huge because of one word. ORIGINALLY. Yes they were stumped as to why they had an entrance wound and no
APPARENT exit and no bullet in the body. That's why they searched so extensively for a bullet. Such a search should have
turned up a bullet that had entered the throat had there been one. The fact is they found no bullets anywhere in the body
which precludes there being two entrance wounds with no exit wounds.
Post by Gil Jesus
In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
That's also one thought that cross his mind. Again, a shallow entering bullet is simply incompatible with a bullet fired from
a distance. But you would have us believe JFK was struck at a distance by not one but two lower powered bullets. It simply
could not have happened.
Post by Gil Jesus
Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
Again, that was their early thinking. Once they removed the organs from the torso they discovered the bullet track which had
bruised the pleura, perforated the strap muscles and nicked the trachea. You always want to ignore these later discoveries
as you do with all inconvenient facts. The autopsy team did not ignore these facts. These facts resolved the riddle as to why
they hand an entrance wound and no bullet in the body.
Post by Gil Jesus
It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
Perry confirmed what they already suspected. That the tracheotomy had been performed over the exit wound which was
right in line with the wound to the trachea.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.
This idea makes no more sense now than when Lifton proposed it over 30 years ago. Any surgical procedure performed to
remove bullets from the body would have been obvious to the FPP. No such surgery was performed. What was discovered
was the trail of tissue damage from the entrance wound in the back to the exit wound in the throat. Even Cyril Wecht
believes that finding.
Post by Gil Jesus
Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
Which only indicates that the ambulance didn't immediately proceed to the front entrance after arriving at the rear loading
dock. It would have taken some time to unload the casket .
Post by Gil Jesus
The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
Plenty of time to remove bullets.
If only you had evidence instead of speculation that any bullets were removed.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
They aren't.
Post by JE Corbett
None of your arguments ever do.
They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
Make your argument of post mortem surgery to remove bullets from the body without leaving a trace to 100 people and
99 would laugh their asses off at you. The other one would be hard of hearing.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
Post by JE Corbett
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
Ditto above.
You shouldn't ditto stupid statements. That's even dumber than the original statement.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
He's talking out of his ass as usual.
Actually, A & B are the only two logical statements I've ever seen Yellowpanties make, even if he was scoffing at them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
Post by JE Corbett
Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
The one you are alleging in which the prosectors engaged in a criminal cover up to hide the truth of the assassination. That
would be in conjunction with the obstruction of justice you allege was committed by the FBI, the DPD, and Henry Wade.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Yep.
Neither of you defined "recently". Old ammunition does not go bad if it is properly stored.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
Post by JE Corbett
who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
Post by JE Corbett
Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
And yet you just can't stop responding, can you ?
Just pointing our your idiocy. Sorry. Just being honest.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-05 21:04:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 12:23:09 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. Just to watch Corbutt squirm.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quickly
acknowledge as true.
Exactly
You exactly ignored the fact...
You cannot claim your speculation as fact.

Cite for your claim, or shut up.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination.
No, you're lying again.
Post by JE Corbett
These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
Post by JE Corbett
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet.
Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
assertion?
Corbett is ASSUMING that these weapons were all handguns.
Corbett KNOWS these were handguns...
Then cite for it.
Post by Gil Jesus
He's also ASSUMING that any shot from the front that entered Kennedy's throat was fired from a rifle.
He speculates a lot.
I know...
No, you speculate. You CONTINUE to refuse to cite for your
speculations...
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that they ALWAYS be less powerful
It's worth noting that Corbutt is now responding to me.
The most powerful handguns are nowhere near as powerful as even medium powered rifles. The fastest
.44 Magnum bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1380 fps.
You confuse velocity with power. And no, you're simply lying again.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
These examples also don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
So you have nothing to say, right?
So if they never mention the caliber of bullets, it never happened ?
Quit trying to reason. You suck at it.
You got schooled, Corbutt. Learn to accept it.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
Speculation
Again, responding to me...
No, that is a fact.
Then cite for it.

But you won't. You're lying again...

You've conducted no tests, you've relied on no citations, you've
merely speculated, then claimed it's a fact.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.
The evidence shows otherwise.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
Who has the problem, not me.
So you have no explanation...
You're lying again. This has already been explained to you.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER."
Sound like a bullet that exited the throat to you ?
The above statement is not incompatible with an exit wound in the throat.
Yes, it is.
Post by Gil Jesus
"The doctors spent more time looking for the bullet THAT ENTERED HIGH IN THE BACK than anything else. The doctors were also firmly CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK ".
Wait. Your own "forensic pathological experts", the autopsists, didn't originally believe the bullet exited the throat ?
That's huge.
No it's not huge because of one word. ORIGINALLY. Yes they were stumped ...
No, they knew where the bullet was. They removed it during the
pre-autopsy.
Post by Gil Jesus
In fact, once Humes found out that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, he assumed that that was the bullet that fell out of the President's back during cardiac massage.
That's also one thought that cross his mind. Again, a shallow entering bullet is simply incompatible with a bullet fired from
a distance.
No it isn't. You'll refuse, as usual, from citing for your wacky
speculation.

Indeed, the further the distance, THE MORE LIKELY THAT A BULLET WOULD
CREATE A SHALLOW WOUND.
Post by Gil Jesus
Humes knew that a transiting bullet required a bullet track through the body . Their probing was unsuccessful in finding a bullet track through the body. As far as they were concerned, the bullet never exited the throat.
Again, that was their early thinking.
And supported by their examination.
Once they removed the organs from the torso they discovered the bullet track
You're lying again. No such bullet track was ever described.
Post by Gil Jesus
It wasn't until the next day when he talked to Dr. Perry and found out there was a bullet wound in the throat that the story changed.
Perry confirmed what they already suspected. That the tracheotomy had been performed over the exit wound which was
right in line with the wound to the trachea.
You're lying again.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Same problems as with your theory of an entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
Unless bullets were removed before the autopsy. As Ben and I have said in the past, records show the President's body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 pm.
This idea makes no more sense now than when Lifton proposed it over 30 years ago. Any surgical procedure performed to
remove bullets from the body would have been obvious to the FPP. No such surgery was performed.
ROTFLMAO!!!

Never bothered to read the Sibert ONeil report, did you?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=3

Surgery to the body WAS SPECIFICALLY ASSERTED BY DR. HUMES!
Post by Gil Jesus
Those same records show that Mrs. Kennedy, RFK and the bronze casket arrived from Andrews AFB at 6:55, some 20 minutes later.
Which only indicates that the ambulance didn't immediately proceed to the front entrance after arriving at the rear loading
dock. It would have taken some time to unload the casket .
Wow! You really don't know the facts, do you?
Post by Gil Jesus
The autopsy didn't officially begin until 8 pm.
Plenty of time to remove bullets.
If only you had evidence instead of speculation that any bullets were removed.
If only you could publicly answer the question: What time did JFK's
body arrive at Bethesda?

Then explain what happened at that time...
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as fact.
They aren't.
Post by JE Corbett
None of your arguments ever do.
They only make sense to sensible people. You're a fucking idiot and this subject is way above your pay scale.
Make your argument of post mortem surgery to remove bullets from the body without leaving a trace
A "trace" was certainly left. Are you blind??? Have you ever
bothered to look at the Autopsy photos???
to 100 people and 99 would laugh their asses off at you. The other one would be hard of hearing.
A meaningless speculation you can't support.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
Post by JE Corbett
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
Ditto above.
You shouldn't ditto stupid statements. That's even dumber than the original statement.
You shouldn't whine about statements you don't understand.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come to these "conclusions?"
He's talking out of his ass as usual.
Actually, A & B are the only two logical statements I've ever seen Yellowpanties make, even if he was scoffing at them.
Notice folks, that Corbutt again is responding to me, but doesn't
answer the questions that refute him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired horizontally.
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY flawed.
And all Corbutt could do was run...
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
Post by JE Corbett
Are we supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald, would use such weak >> ammunition
Who said anything about a conspiracy ? What conspiracy was that ?
The one you are alleging ...
Quote it.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Yep.
Neither of you defined "recently". Old ammunition does not go bad if it is properly stored.
The Warren Commission defined it. Are you such a coward that you
can't look up what the WC claimed?

And defend it?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
Corbutt ran again...
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
Clearly, Corbutt can't.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
And yet you just can't stop responding, can you ?
Gil Jesus
2023-12-07 10:14:34 UTC
Permalink
You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
Source ?
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 15:33:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 02:14:34 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
You exactly ignored the fact these were all close up shootings with low powered handguns.
Source ?
Don't hold your breath. The only "source" Corbutt can cite is his
speculation.
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-06 01:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 05:15:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Although Corbutt's entire reply is a logical fallacy, I'll find it
funny this time to answer in detail. ust to watch Corbutt squirm.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo once again puts his piss poor reasoning skills on fully display.
There was no "reasoning" being used. Gil simply pointed out that not
all bullets that enter ... leave. This is a FACT. Corbutt is now
denying a basic ordinary FACT that most people would quicly
acknowledge as true.
Post by JE Corbett
These are apples to oranges comparisons when it
comes to the JFK assassination.
No, you're lying again.
Post by JE Corbett
These were all handguns
At no point in the video does it state that handguns were used. While
it may be a valid speculation for some of the cases, it's simply your
wild imagination to claim it for all these case. You don't know, and
you've not done the research.
Post by JE Corbett
fired from close range with the exception of the victim hit by a
stray bullet.
Can you QUOTE the relevant statements that support your wacky lying
assertion?
Post by JE Corbett
Handguns have much less velocity and much less penetrating power
than rifle bullets.
As a general rule, yes. But not always. Your argument requires that
they ALWAYS be less powerful
No. It requires that was what was used in the cases cited.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
These examples also
don't mention the caliber of the bullets.
So you have nothing to say, right?
No, you don't. Neither you nor Gil show how the examples cited apply to the assassination.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
A .22LR has much less penetrating power thana .38 Special. The .22LR might very
well make a shallow entry wound. A .38 Special would either pass completely through JFK's throat and strike his spine,
paralyzing him in an instant.
A completely meaningless statement not based on any evidence from the
video. Simply your wild speculation posted as fact.
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Again, this is simply your speculation.
No, full body x-rays were taken prior to the autopsy and they showed no bullets anywhere in the body.
== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?
Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.
Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
== unquote ==

You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery. Evidence the autopsy doctors would have seen and included in the autopsy report. So you will of course expand the conspiracy to claim these doctors are lying about what they saw. It was ever thus. CTs always expand the conspiracy to explain away inconvenient facts… that's how we wind up with an altered Z-film, an altered body of the President, swapped shells, swapped bullet fragments, a swapped rifle, intimidated witnesses, lying cops, a lying Marina Oswald, and everyone out to frame innocent Lee Oswald.
Post by Ben Holmes
The evidence shows otherwise.
Post by JE Corbett
Lastly you have the problem of an entrance wound in JFK's back and no exit.
Why does a fact become a "problem?" You are bound by this same fact.
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat. You don't, as CTs posit the throat wound is an entry, not an exit… this is your problem to explain, and not by speculating “they” removed the bullets.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
Same problems as with your theory of an
entrance wound in the neck. An entry wound with no exit and no bullet in the body. It makes no sense.
To you, perhaps. You speculate, then you post your speculations as
fact.
They aren't.
Explain your theory, and cite the evidence for it. Or run. we both know you will run.
The evidence is there was a back wound, and no bullet in the body. The evidence further is that Connally and JFK react at almost the same instant. The autopsists determined the bullet transmitted the president’s body, exiting his throat.

That’s the evidence. It leads me to conclude one bullet struck both men.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
None of your
arguments ever do.
Can you name this logical fallacy? Check with Huckster if you can't.
Why don't you name it? Why invoke me to do your bidding? Unless of course, as you often do, you can't name any logical fallacy, and support how it applies above.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
You never think these things out. You are so desperate to come with an excuse to cling to your whacky
theories that you don't give a shit if they make the least bit of sense.
Ditto above.
Post by JE Corbett
It's quite simple, Gil. Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back
and throw couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
This statement shows your COMPLETE lack of reasoning ability.
A. A bullet that is so weak that it would make a shallow penetration.
B. Cannot have the velocity to hit JFK from any distance.
What distance? What velocity? What tests have you conducted to come
to these "conclusions?"
Post by JE Corbett
The arc of the bullet would prevent that.
The arc of a bullet does *NOT* prevent it from striking something.
But not necessarily what it was aimed at.
Post by Ben Holmes
**ALL** bullets have an arc in their trajectory. It may not be
measurable a few feet away, but it's scientifically impossible on
Earth to have a perfectly flat traectory on a bullet fired
horizontally.
Or at any angle other that straight down or up. Gravity will pull the bullet off a straight line course.
Post by Ben Holmes
Your theory that bullets with "arc" can't strike anything is SERIOUSLY
flawed.
He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.

He clearly meant strike what you are aiming at. Bullets have a nearly straight trajectory, and in the 100th of a second the bullet was in flight, it would not vary greatly from a straight line. If it was slowed through a misfire, it would hit below what it was aimed it, and it would have much lower velocity, meaning it was in flight longer, and would drop further. If you posit a low velocity bullet from a misfire to get around the supposed shallow back wound, then you're also positing a bullet that doesn't hit JFK in the back, unless the gunman was firing over JFK’s head.

It's called physics.
Post by Ben Holmes
It seems meaningless to point out that you're pretending to be a
ballistics expert, and cannot cite ANYTHING supporting your wacky
claim.
Post by JE Corbett
Are we
supposed to believe that your sophisticated conspiracy
Can you name this fallacy?
Post by JE Corbett
that was so thorough and so omnipotent that it could assassinate JFK
Does it take a "thorough and omnipotent" conspiracy to murder someone?
No, that’s what Oswald did.

But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
and pin it on some schmuck named Lee Harvey Oswald,
As opposed to some other schmuck? Who?
No, according to CTs, Oswald was the framed schmuck, no one else. Deal with the points made.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
would use such weak ammunition
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Post by JE Corbett
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
But not in yours, right? So explain why “they” choose Oswald, a supposed poor shot, and then framed him for owning a old weapon that supposedly couldn't shoot straight, instead of framing a good shooter with a good weapon, or at least frame Oswald for owning a good weapon.

This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by JE Corbett
who owned a high powered rifle.
Can you cite the evidence for this claim? Let's examine it, and see
if you're not just telling another lie.
Post by JE Corbett
Like most of your arguments, this one makes zero sense.
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Your logical fallacies make zero sense as well - as most of America
agrees.
The truth is not up for vote. I just had a discussion today with a relative who saw “some movie on Showtime” (clearly Stone’s nonsense) and from the movie, he was convinced that there was a conspiracy. This is part of the voting public. He hasn't read the Warren Report. He hasn't read anything by Moore or Posner or Bugliosi, or any other lone gunman authors. This is typical of the voting public 60 years removed from the event. You cite polls as if they are meaningful. They are not.
JE Corbett
2023-12-06 04:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.
Just to clarify, that was supposed to say throat. I'm guessing that didn't hit the "a" firmly enough on the keyboard and it came
out throt. Auto correct might have changed it to throw. I think I'll turn that off.

Otherwise, you have done an outstanding job of shooting down just about every one of Yellowpanties inane arguments.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 15:18:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:25:05 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
He didn't say anything. He said, “Any bullet that was so weak that it would make a shallow penetration into the soft tissue of JFK's back and throw [not through?] couldn't have enough velocity to hit JFK from any distance”.
Just to clarify, that was supposed to say throat. I'm guessing that didn't hit the "a" firmly enough on the keyboard and it came
out throt. Auto correct might have changed it to throw. I think I'll turn that off.
Otherwise, you have done an outstanding job of shooting down just about every one of Yellowpanties inane arguments.
That's not possble from a coward.

Every single day that Huckster posts, he proves himself a coward.

And I can't take the credit, he does it all by himself. (As do you.)
NoTrueFlags Here
2023-12-06 05:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these unnamed other people say. If he had a conscience, this trick would bother him. But Hank has no conscience. Anybody who defends mass murderers, of course, has none.
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-06 18:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Post by Hank Sienzant
This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these unnamed other people say.
These are not generalizations, but actual claims by actual CTs that I am repeating here. If Gil or Ben don't believe these claims, they need merely post they don't believe them. If they do, they should defend them with citations to the evidence and reasoned argument.

Here’s what NTF excised:
— quote —
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Post by Hank Sienzant
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
But not in yours, right? So explain why “they” choose Oswald, a supposed poor shot, and then framed him for owning a old weapon that supposedly couldn't shoot straight, instead of framing a good shooter with a good weapon, or at least frame Oswald for owning a good weapon.

This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
— unquote —

Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon. These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
If he had a conscience, this trick would bother him. But Hank has no conscience. Anybody who defends mass murderers, of course, has none.
Ad hominem and poisoning the well are still both logical fallacies. Good to see you don't advance an explanation either, but simply call me names. One would almost think you can't defend the bizarre conspiracy theory posited either.
NoTrueFlags Here
2023-12-06 18:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Post by Hank Sienzant
This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these unnamed other people say.
These are not generalizations, but actual claims by actual CTs that I am repeating here. If Gil or Ben don't believe these claims, they need merely post they don't believe them. If they do, they should defend them with citations to the evidence and reasoned argument.
— quote —
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied
and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one
of the proven lies told by the WCR.
Post by Hank Sienzant
, and then try to frame a guy
They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.
But not in yours, right? So explain why “they” choose Oswald, a supposed poor shot, and then framed him for owning a old weapon that supposedly couldn't shoot straight, instead of framing a good shooter with a good weapon, or at least frame Oswald for owning a good weapon.
This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.
— unquote —
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon. These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
If he had a conscience, this trick would bother him. But Hank has no conscience. Anybody who defends mass murderers, of course, has none.
Ad hominem and poisoning the well are still both logical fallacies. Good to see you don't advance an explanation either, but simply call me names. One would almost think you can't defend the bizarre conspiracy theory posited either.
Here, Hank weasels and lies as he is wont to do when his trousers have fallen down, hoping that you won't notice.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 19:05:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 10:53:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ben needs to explain ...
Huckster thinks he can demand answers when he refuses to GIVE answers:

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
2023-12-07 10:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
JE Corbett
2023-12-07 12:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
anybody noticing? Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle? How did they even know he had a
rifle? How did they knew where he kept it? One last question.

Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
lame excuses for not answering.
Post by Gil Jesus
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
Nor to any sensible person.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 15:46:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:54:54 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from
multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor
shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from
one place with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle
and making those shots with that good weapon.
Huckster need to explain why he can't support his own statements. I
support mine quite well. And if he should dare to start answering, I
can answer this one easily, and in detail, and CREDIBLY.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
anybody noticing?
They *were* noticed. One was noticed coming down the stairs, and
another was noticed fleeing out the back.

A little thought on your part can deal with the weapons. But if you
can't figure it out, I'll be happy to slap you with the obvious.
Post by JE Corbett
Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Post by JE Corbett
How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Post by JE Corbett
How did they even know he had a
rifle?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Post by JE Corbett
How did they knew where he kept it?
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Post by JE Corbett
One last question.
Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
lame excuses for not answering.
I'll answer, IN DETAIL, each of the above questions when you answer,
IN DETAIL, this: When did you stop molesting your grandmother?

Since this is an inconvenient question, I'm not expecting you to
answer but instead simply run away. As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
Nor to any sensible person.
As most of America agrees with us, this is clearly a lie.
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-07 18:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ? No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
How do you suppose your professional assassin managed to flee the TSBD carrying his weapon of choice without
anybody noticing?
And not just one shooter, other shooters from other buildings as well! Remember critics posit multiple shooters (the most common number is three, but I’ve seen suggestions of as many as eight). They all have to get away with their weapons or leave them behind to be discovered.
Post by JE Corbett
Why would a professional assassin want to try to kill JFK with a low powered weapon capable of making
only a shallow penetration into JFK''s back?How did your conspirators get Oswald's rifle? How did they even know he had a
rifle? How did they knew where he kept it? One last question.
Since all of the above are inconvenient questions, I'm not expecting you to answer but instead come up with another of your
lame excuses for not answering.
Post by Gil Jesus
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
Nor to any sensible person.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 19:02:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:51:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

Still running, eh Huckster?

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
2023-12-07 15:35:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 02:37:00 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
This is how desperate believer are becoming... they can't follow
common sense. Gil is right, of course.
Post by Gil Jesus
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
And the explanations HAVE been posted or published. Huckster is doing
what Huckster does best... lie.
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-07 18:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a good weapon, then frame Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
To kill a President if the reward was high enough? Certainly. Everything has a price. Why couldn't this “professional assassin” simply purchase another model of the same rifle he favors, and use that?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle? Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot the president with a good rifle, and frame the patsy for owning a good rifle instead of a piece of junk rifle?

Do you even listen to yourself? You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one, but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions, then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body, another team to alter the films and photos as needed, another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…

Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
Post by Gil Jesus
These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.
It makes no sense to you, of course.
Because you can't explain your thinking here, of course. Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 19:02:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:49:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

Still a coward, eh Huckster?

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
2023-12-07 19:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
Who said that ?
I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
Where do you people get this shit from ?
Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
Post by Hank Sienzant
You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
I never said anything about saving a few dollars. Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?

but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,

Just like they had planned to do to Castro.

then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…

I never said anything about people being hired. Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
Post by Hank Sienzant
Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 19:26:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:14:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
Who said that ?
Huckster won't say...
Post by Gil Jesus
I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
Where do you people get this shit from ?
Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
Because believers can't handle what we ACTUALLY say.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
I never said anything about saving a few dollars. Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?
The answer is probably "yes."
Post by Gil Jesus
but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
Just like they had planned to do to Castro.
then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
I never said anything about people being hired. Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
Because he doesn't think.
Post by Gil Jesus
Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
Yep... true that!
Post by Gil Jesus
Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
Huckster won't. He'll run. As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-07 21:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the president with that “piece of junk” rifle?
Who said that ?
I never said he shot the President with a piece of junk rifle.
Where do you people get this shit from ?
Why do you always try to attribute things to me that I never said ?
Your theory is that Oswald was framed with a “piece of junk” rifle by conspirators who then planted that “piece of junk” weapon. You are further theorizing that there were multiple shooters, as you claim JFK was shot from multiple directions. Your theory raises the questions I asked.

For example at the link below if ask if Oswald owned the rifle in evidence:
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/

Clearly you are suggesting that Oswald was framed for owning that rifle, and that the conspirators, who could have framed Oswald for owning any weapon, chose to frame Oswald for owning a piece of junk rifle. I am asking you why they would do that. If not a cost consideration, why a poor weapon instead of a good one?

Why shoot JFK from multiple locations if the plan is to frame Oswald as a lone shooter?
Why frame Oswald with a lousy weapon instead of a good one?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You're suggesting the conspirators were concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one,
I never said anything about saving a few dollars.
You wrote:
— quote —
Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.
Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just to frame some warehouse schmuck ?
No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that no one's going to miss.
— unquote —

That implies cost is a consideration. Again, why not spend a few dollars more and frame Oswald for owning a good weapon instead of a lousy one if cost is not a consideration?
Post by Gil Jesus
Have you been pulling things out of Corbett's ass again ?
No, just asking you about what you said, and the implications of what you said.
Post by Gil Jesus
but instead of just shooting the President using one shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,
Just like they had planned to do to Castro.
then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body
another team to alter the films and photos as needed,
another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…
I never said anything about people being hired.
Ok, so all these teams were assembled for free.
And they got qualified surgeons who hated JFK to volunteer to alter the President’s wounds in Dallas *and* in Bethesda *and* in Walter Reed? They were all on standby for various contingencies?
Kennedy had enemies in Dallas, the FBI, the CIA and the military.
Post by Gil Jesus
What makes you think that none of them are suspects ?
Shifting the burden. What evidence do you have that they were part of a conspiracy?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence
planting and swapping, film alteration, intimidating witnesses, etc.?
Again, YOU'RE assuming these people were hired. There were plenty of people who would have killed JFK for free. Not the least of which were Cubans aligned with the CIA.
And these Cubans were also qualifed to perform surgery on the the dead (or living) President?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Explain your thinking about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way — and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.
That's YOUR theory. You explain it.
Not my theory. It’s the ramifications of your theory. Your theory has problems you won't explain (nor have you even considered these issues, it appears).

You have failed to explain any of the issues with your theory that i’ve brought up.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 21:43:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?

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?
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-07 22:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
I’ll await your clarifications and we can proceed from there.

All the best, wishing you good tidings.

…Spam deleted…
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 22:25:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:23:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
Nope. QUOTE him, or be proven a coward. Just like your cowardice
here:

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?
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-08 17:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:23:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:41:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Your theory ...
Why would anyone trust what *YOU* claim is someone else's words?
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
Feel free to correct any portions of Gil’s theory I may have misunderstood.
I’ll await your clarifications and we can proceed from there.

All the best, wishing you good tidings.
Post by Ben Holmes
Nope. QUOTE him, or be proven a coward.
Ah, so as always, you decline to discuss the assassination even when invited to do so, and in lieu of that discussion, substitute calling me names. Color me not surprised.

…Spam deleted…
Ben Holmes
2023-12-11 15:21:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 09:55:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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
2023-12-06 12:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
JE Corbett
2023-12-06 14:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald. The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted. The question is whether the
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 15:44:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 06:23:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Those who had both training AND experience did indeed see it before
the trach incision.

You're simply lying again.

And will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your lie.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
Where did much of the "evidence" come from?

You can't answer... And won't.
Post by JE Corbett
The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
And cannot be defended by you.
Post by JE Corbett
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Because, despite having your head up the your own Corbutt, it does.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
See above.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted.
Yes. It is. Which is why you so desperate deny it.
Post by JE Corbett
The question is whether the evidence against Oswald is genuine.
You can't cite it... (and have refused every single time I've asked
you to cite it.) Meaning *YOU* know you can't defend it.
Post by JE Corbett
There is no evidence that it is not
Provably a lie.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
Post by JE Corbett
and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else.
The throat wound and Connally's wrist wound point to someone else. The
NAA does *NOT* point to Oswald.

So you're simply lying again.
BT George
2023-12-06 16:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald. The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted. The question is whether the
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Defense lawyer and politician tactic 101. Point to a time when someone was untruthful or dishonest, then lazily dismiss any and all other claims they ever make regardless of the supporting evidence.
BT George
2023-12-06 16:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald. The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted. The question is whether the
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Defense lawyer and politician tactic 101. Point to a time when someone was untruthful or dishonest, then lazily dismiss any and all other claims they ever make regardless of the supporting evidence.
Also, never ask yourself, "Self; is there a reason the person might want to get it *right* this time?" ..I dunno, like maybe because the whole world was watching or because the assassination already happened--so to speak--on your watch, so blowing the investigation could only make you look *worse*?
JE Corbett
2023-12-06 17:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald. The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted. The question is whether the
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Defense lawyer and politician tactic 101. Point to a time when someone was untruthful or dishonest, then lazily dismiss any and all other claims they ever make regardless of the supporting evidence.
Also, never ask yourself, "Self; is there a reason the person might want to get it *right* this time?" ..I dunno, like maybe because the whole world was watching or because the assassination already happened--so to speak--on your watch, so blowing the investigation could only make you look *worse*?
Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 17:49:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 09:21:57 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
Highlighting the cowardice of believers to answer these intelligent
AND RELEVANT questions is the mark of a moron when you're the one
refusiing to answer them.
BT George
2023-12-06 18:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald. The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted. The question is whether the
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Defense lawyer and politician tactic 101. Point to a time when someone was untruthful or dishonest, then lazily dismiss any and all other claims they ever make regardless of the supporting evidence.
Also, never ask yourself, "Self; is there a reason the person might want to get it *right* this time?" ..I dunno, like maybe because the whole world was watching or because the assassination already happened--so to speak--on your watch, so blowing the investigation could only make you look *worse*?
Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
He doesn't appear to understand them, so we certainly cannot expect him to ask them!
JE Corbett
2023-12-06 18:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Post by Hank Sienzant
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
No one who had training in making such judgements got to see the exit wound before the tracheostomy incision.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald. The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
Why do you keep bringing this up as if it means something?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
See above.
Post by Gil Jesus
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
The question is not whether there have been corrupt cops or innocent people convicted. The question is whether the
evidence against Oswald is genuine. There is no evidence that it is not and it all points to Oswald as the assassin and to no
one else. Pointing to a small number of innocent people Wade convicted over a 36 year period or corrupt cops in NYC does
nothing to cast doubt on the evidence against Oswald. Yours are red herring arguments.
Defense lawyer and politician tactic 101. Point to a time when someone was untruthful or dishonest, then lazily dismiss any and all other claims they ever make regardless of the supporting evidence.
Also, never ask yourself, "Self; is there a reason the person might want to get it *right* this time?" ..I dunno, like maybe because the whole world was watching or because the assassination already happened--so to speak--on your watch, so blowing the investigation could only make you look *worse*?
Asking intelligent questions is never going to yield the answers Giltardo needs to support his narrative.
He doesn't appear to understand them, so we certainly cannot expect him to ask them!
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. The issue is not whether you could have an entry wound
in the throat but no exit? Of course that's possible with a low powered round. It's not even about whether such a low powered
round could have struck JFK from any appreciable distance, even though that is a highly dubious proposition. The issue is
that if you have an entrance wound with no exit, there should be a bullet in the body. In JFK's case, there was an entrance
wound in the back and if the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there should be two bullets in the body. There were
none. Gil suggests, without actually stating, that pre-autopsy surgery was used to remove the bullets from the body. Never
mind that there was no sign of such surgery on the body. Giltardo doesn't bother to tell us who did they surgery although he
suggests the clandestine surgery was done from the time the body arrived until the autopsy began at 8:00pm. Giltardo
suggests that was the reason everyone was asked to leave the room. That would suggest Humes and Boswell were in on
the coverup. If that were true, why bother digging the bullets out? Why not just leave them in and say they didn't find any?
Why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck kept in the dark about an entry wound in the throat. If they were part of the cover up,
why wouldn't they have been informed of it and that they were supposed to conclude it was an exit wound? If it wasn't
Humes, Boswell, and Finck who dug these alleged bullets out of JFK's neck, who did the clandestine surgery prior to 8:00pm
and how were they able to get unfettered access to the body?

The simple fact is the autopsy report shoots down most of the popular conspiracy myths and is perfectly consistent with
the SBT. The conspiracy hobbyists want to cling to their myths so they need and excuse to dismiss the medical evidence.
Over three decades ago, a schmuck named David Lifton dreamed up a bizarre tale of body alteration prior to the autopsy
as their excuse for dismissing the medical evidence. Since no one since has come up with a plausible alternative, the hard
core conspiracy hobbyists continue to cling to this myth..
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 19:24:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 10:54:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
What Giltardo does is divert.
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.

Notice also that even though Huckster is posting in this thread, he
**NEVER** points out these logical fallacies by fellow believers.

Quite the hypocrisy, eh Huckster?
Post by JE Corbett
The thread asks the wrong question. The issue is not whether you could have an entry wound
in the throat but no exit?
If this is a wrong question, IT IS BELIEVERS WHO HAVE FREQUENTLY
RAISED IT.
Post by JE Corbett
Of course that's possible with a low powered round. It's not even about whether such a low powered
round could have struck JFK from any appreciable distance, even though that is a highly dubious proposition.
Notice folks, that this is coming from the same folks who are
constantly pointing out how small Dealey Plaza actually is.

They don't seem to remember their own talking points.
Post by JE Corbett
The issue is that if you have an entrance wound with no exit, there should be a bullet in the body.
I'm quite sure that there was... prior to the pre-autopsy autopsy.
Post by JE Corbett
In JFK's case, there was an entrance
wound in the back and if the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there should be two bullets in the body.
It's good to know you can count.
Post by JE Corbett
There were none.
At what point in time?
Post by JE Corbett
Gil suggests, without actually stating, that pre-autopsy surgery was used to remove the bullets from the body.
I've stated it EXPLICTLY. Here, let me do it again: Bullets were
removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.

Now, I know you're a coward, and refuse to address the EVIDENCE for
this taking place... so there's that.
Post by JE Corbett
Never mind that there was no sign of such surgery on the body.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!

Both Gil and I have pointed to exactly this, in the Sibert ONeil
report.

Huckster Sienzant knows you're lying here, but won't comment.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo doesn't bother to tell us who did they surgery
Drs. Humes & Boswell.
Post by JE Corbett
although he
suggests the clandestine surgery was done from the time the body arrived until the autopsy began at 8:00pm.
And what time was that?

I've asked this question DOZENS of times in this forum over the last
few years, and not a single believer has dared to answer.
Post by JE Corbett
Giltardo suggests that was the reason everyone was asked to leave the room.
I'll do more than "suggest" it. It was clearly the obvious reason.
Post by JE Corbett
That would suggest Humes and Boswell were in on the coverup.
Were they in the military? Were they subject to military orders?
Post by JE Corbett
If that were true, why bother digging the bullets out? Why not just leave them in and say they didn't find any?
How many people attended the Autopsy?

Are you as much a moron as this question implies?
Post by JE Corbett
Why were Humes, Boswell, and Finck kept in the dark about an entry wound in the throat.
That's a question **YOU** need to answer. They were *ORDERED* not to
dissect the wound in the throat. **YOU** need to explain why.

Or run like the coward you are... Again.
Post by JE Corbett
If they were part of the cover up, why wouldn't they have been
informed of it and that they were supposed to conclude it was an exit
wound?
It was an evolving story.
Post by JE Corbett
If it wasn't
Humes, Boswell, and Finck
Are you ignorant? Finck wasn't even there yet.
Post by JE Corbett
who dug these alleged bullets out of JFK's neck,
There weren't two bullets in JFK's neck. It was Humes & Boswell.
Post by JE Corbett
who did the clandestine surgery prior to 8:00pm
and how were they able to get unfettered access to the body?
Simple - they ordered everyone out of the room.
Post by JE Corbett
The simple fact is the autopsy report shoots down most of the popular conspiracy myths and is perfectly consistent with
the SBT.
No, there you go lying again.
Post by JE Corbett
The conspiracy hobbyists want to cling to their myths so they need and excuse to dismiss the medical evidence.
You don't believe the medical evidence. You only believe the
conclusions put forth by the WCR.
Post by JE Corbett
Over three decades ago, a schmuck named David Lifton dreamed up a bizarre tale of body alteration prior to the autopsy
as their excuse for dismissing the medical evidence. Since no one since has come up with a plausible alternative, the hard
core conspiracy hobbyists continue to cling to this myth..
So why are you so afraid of what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda?

And what medical evidence are we "dismissing?"

Indeed, its YOU who dismisses medical evidence... such as where the
largest fragments are found in the trail of bullet fragments in the AP
X-ray. This is ANOTHER question that not a single believer has ever
answered.

Such amazing cowardice!!!
Gil Jesus
2023-12-07 10:22:45 UTC
Permalink
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
No the question is one that Hank asked here ( next to the last line) :
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ

He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
JE Corbett
2023-12-07 13:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
I'll let Hank speak for himself. I let you do the same but you are never able to come up with answers or explanations so
once again you divert, in this case to what Hank has said rather than answering for yourself. You are the one that started
this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise. Rather than do that, when
faced with critical questioning of your premise, you divert to what someone else has said. That doesn't relieve you of your
burden to support your premise.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 15:51:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 05:01:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
LOL!! I was right! Corbutt got slapped with a cite - proving him a
liar, but he just moves on... (in this case - doubling down on a lie.)
Post by JE Corbett
I'll let Hank speak for himself. I let you do the same but you are never able to come up with answers or explanations so
once again you divert, in this case to what Hank has said rather than answering for yourself.
ROTFLMAO!!! Gill just proved you a liar...
Post by JE Corbett
You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up
with the premise.
So he's not allowed to respond to the kooks who reply?
Post by JE Corbett
It is your burden to support your premise.
He did.


I deleted the rest of your lies...
Gil Jesus
2023-12-07 16:47:59 UTC
Permalink
You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
No I started this thread about what Hanky Panky said.
Don't you read good ? LOL.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 17:11:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:47:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
You are the one that started this thread and the one who came up with the premise. It is your burden to support your premise.
No I started this thread about what Hanky Panky said.
Don't you read good ? LOL.
Nah, he reads goodly.

He just doesn't read honestly.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 15:48:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 02:22:45 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
And now that Gil has PROVEN that he didn't "divert" - watch as Corbutt
refuses to acknowledge this, and just moves on...
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-07 18:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
What Giltardo does is divert. The thread asks the wrong question. Of course that's possible with a low powered round.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/-jknsCt_AQAJ
First, look at everything you failed to answer:
— quote —
Why would ‘they’ do anything like that, when ‘they’ could have simply exposed JFK’s affairs and had him voted out of office? This means ‘they’ are not committing treason. This doesn't sound like a bizarre plan to you — shoot JFK from multiple directions, then attempt to frame a lone shooter, and then have to alter or substitute all the evidence that doesn't point to the appointed patsy?

What was the plan if Connally or someone else was shot from the knoll or other than the TSBD? Or if the President survived? How do you alter the wounds on a living person, or explain a bullet entry wound in the neck but no exit?

What’s the plan?
— unquote —

I’m asking why “they” chose to frame a lone nut by shooting JFK from multiple directions - that make a whole lot LESS sense than shooting JFK from one direction, and framing Oswald for owning that weapon. Doing it the latter way means you don't have to alter the body, alter any films, swap out shells, swap out or plant bullets, swap out the rifle, yada yada, all the stuff that critics allege.

But you think they *chose* to do it the hard way. Explain your thinking here. How did you arrive at the hard way instead of the easy way?
Post by Gil Jesus
He seems to think that it's not possible to have an entry wound in the throat with no exit.
Maybe you should discuss it with him.
No, I'm asking (see the lead-in to that question), what if JFK survived the shooting, or Connally was shot from the knoll? How do you alter that wound on JFK in Parkland Hospital (don't “they” need two sets of wound alterers, or more - Walter Reed was considered for the autopsy before settling on Bethesda), or how would YOU explain a bullet wound in the throat to a living JFK (or Connally), and still blame it on Oswald shooting from behind? It's not simply a matter of a bullet entry and no exit, nor is the answer as simple you pretend (“they took it out!”) to explain why no bullets were found in the body. There’s a lot of contingencies “they” would have to consider before signing off on the conspiracy plan you suggest was carried out. I'm asking you to consider how many contingencies they would have to plan for to carry out the plan you are convinced was carried out.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:22:59 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Indeed:

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
2023-12-07 19:28:19 UTC
Permalink
I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?

Since then:

I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ

You ran

I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ

You ran.

You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
Nobody's buying it here.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 20:36:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:28:19 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
Huckster's a coward who simply cannot answer legitimate evidential
questions. He's been caught lying a number of times about the
evidence, saying things that are not supportable - such as his lie
about the Parkland news conference.

But I'm not saying anything that you don't know, Gil.
Post by Gil Jesus
I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
You ran
I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
You ran.
You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
Nobody's buying it here.
Huckster can't win... he knows it. This is why he tries to limit
things to just topics he's willing to address. But his cowardice
shows just where the truth lies...
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-07 22:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
No, I responded with numerous citations to the evidence, explaining what happened and why in a number of questions you asked - many of which were begged questions or unproven assumptions by you.. I don't do insults.

After you “scored” my responses in summary form only, without telling me what you judged right and what you judged wrong, I invited you to delineate exactly which answers of mine were off the mark. You never did. I invited you to discuss those issues and work out our differences. You never did.
Post by Gil Jesus
Now you expect me to answer YOUR questions ?
About your theory, yes. There’s some problems with it that you have failed to consider and apparently don't have answers for.
Post by Gil Jesus
I asked you to name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5_hog-lXmA/m/nZN3tD4uAQAJ
No one did. Only two doctors (at most) saw the wound before the trache was performed. Neither inspected the wound closely, nor was it their duty to make a determination of whether it was an entry or exit. That was done by the autopsy doctors. But you don't accept their determination, despite their being much more qualified to render that judgment than emergency room doctors whose responsibility is trying to save the shooting victim’s life.
Post by Gil Jesus
You ran
I asked you how did Janie Taylor and/or her sources know that people were asked to leave the autopsy room almost TWO YEARS before Frank O'Neill revealed it to the ARRB ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4ppOk6akK9w/m/yktcXZuhAQAJ
Who is Janie Taylor and what did see observe? When did Janie Taylor first come forward with her hearsay twice removed that has no named source? How much credibility should I grant to such hearsay?

How much do you grant?
Post by Gil Jesus
You ran.
You have a lot of nerve complaining about questions of yours I don't answer when you run for the hills from any of mine.
You’re the one running. You have a theory that you can’t support when any of your assumptions are challenged.
Post by Gil Jesus
Go play your hypocritical game someplace else Hank.
Nobody's buying it here.
Well, now you’re invoking the two wrongs make a right logical fallacy - that since I supposedly avoid answering your questions, you have the right to not answer mine.

It’s a convenient excuse, but that’s all it is. If cost is not a consideration, why frame Oswald for owning a lousy, cheap weapon that was a “piece of junk”, when for a few dollars more, you could frame him for owning a better weapon that was not a “piece of junk”?
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 22:04:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:02:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
I gave you 40 questions to answer. I posted them 5 at a time over a period of 8 days.
You responded with 18 comments, insults and questions and 1 correct answer.
No...
Yes. Here's another example of your cowardice:

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
2023-12-07 10:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
The case against Oswald was made by the WC.
No, the case against Oswald was made by the Dallas Police.
Gil Jesus
2023-12-07 10:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
So you're suggesting that Wade never framed anyone until the case came to trial ?
JE Corbett
2023-12-07 13:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
A completely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
So you're suggesting that Wade never framed anyone until the case came to trial ?
I have no idea whether Wade ever deliberately framed anyone prior to the assassination.
I know the question is irrelevant to the question of Oswald's guilt or innocence since Wade
did not prosecute Oswald.

One more example of what Bud has said about conspiracy hobbyists for a long time. They
look at all the wrong things and do so incorrectly.

Prosecutor: I object on the grounds the question is irrelevant and immaterial.

Judge Gildtardo: OVERRULED.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 15:52:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 05:06:52 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Acompletely irrelevant point since Wade never prosecuted Oswald.
So you're suggesting that Wade never framed anyone until the case came to trial ?
I have no idea whether Wade ever deliberately framed anyone prior to the assassination.
And yet, you take the time to answer... I deleted your answer, since
you've already told us all we need to know.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 15:25:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 04:44:54 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
You will suggest a pre-autopsy in which “they” removed those bullets, but you won't explain how that could be done without leaving evidence on the body of post-mortem surgery.
Maybe you should read page 4 of the Siebert/O'Neill report.
Huckster, like all other believers, is TERRIFIED of what time JFK's
body arrived at Bethesda... because they *KNOW* that it's absolutely
inconceivable that the body arrived, and nothing happened.

And, as Gil points out, the evidence shows that there *WAS* evidence
of post mortem surgery... evidence that I find it difficult to believe
Huckster was unaware of... so he's simply lying again.
Post by Gil Jesus
No, we have an exit at the front of the throat
Prove it. Name someone who saw the throat wound prior to the tracheostomy and described it conclusively as a wound of exit.
Huckster will run.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

He cannot publicly admit that there's no evidence for an exit wound at
JFK's throat... and POSITIVE corroborating evidence that it's an
entry.
Post by Gil Jesus
But that is not what Gil and CTs everywhere are positing. They posit a conspiracy that could alter all the evidence to point to Oswald. That sounds like a thorough and omnipotent one.
Tell that to the 19 innocent men who Henry Wade had convicted and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of the innocent man Henry Wade convinced a jury to send to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
You're living in LALA land, Hank. You're obviously naive about the way things work in the real world.
Ask Frank Serpico about police corruption in the 60s.
Huckster is slicker than most, but he's still a coward and a liar, as
all believers end up being.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 15:17:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 17:14:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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
2023-12-07 10:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
JE Corbett
2023-12-07 12:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?

This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you. You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process. You start with the
conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them. Anything that
is necessary for those things to be true must have happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened. This is just
the latest example of your methodology. You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound. In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets in the body, you
assume somebody must have removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever happening. I must have
happened or there would still be bullets in the body. You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target and the fact you need not one but two such bullets. You
refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit. Since the
back wound was provably and entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit. You also ignore
the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat. You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was killed
by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his
throat is incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what happened. It doesn't
matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates, you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front, so the
medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.

Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 15:56:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter?
ARE YOU STUPID???


Tell you what... go ahead and get a full body X-ray, then come to
Oxnard California - we'll get another full body X-ray, and see if
bullets have suddenly appeared in your body.
Post by JE Corbett
Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
No moron, they get taken out.
Post by JE Corbett
This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you. You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process. You start with the
conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them. Anything that
is necessary for those things to be true must have happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened. This is just
the latest example of your methodology. You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound. In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets in the body, you
assume somebody must have removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever happening. I must have
happened or there would still be bullets in the body. You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target and the fact you need not one but two such bullets. You
refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit. Since the
back wound was provably and entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit. You also ignore
the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat. You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was killed
by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his
throat is incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what happened. It doesn't
matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates, you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front, so the
medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.
Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.
I left this word vomit in for laughs. What time did JFK's body arrive
at Bethesda?
Gil Jesus
2023-12-07 16:44:44 UTC
Permalink
What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
Corbett spanked again by Ben.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 17:13:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:44:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
Corbett spanked again by Ben.
Corbutt is AFRAID to cite the evidence for the time JFK arrived at
Bethesda.

This is because he *KNOWS* just how wacky it will seem when he is
forced to claim that the body just laid there... and everyone waiting
for 8pm.

He can't admit his lies... or defend 'em.
Gil Jesus
2023-12-07 17:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
Source ?
Post by JE Corbett
It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?

What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?

Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )

When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )

Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )

The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."

Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 17:33:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 09:21:50 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Indeed it is. If the WCR said it, they think it's evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
Source ?
Don't hold your breath... Corbutt will never source a lie.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Slapping Corbutt with evidence again, I see.

He'll run.

Believers always run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!
JE Corbett
2023-12-07 18:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Unlike you they were not simpletons. They could process information. They had an entry wound in the back, contusions to
the pleura and strap muscles, and damage to the trachea. This trail of damage led to the tracheotomy incision which would
lead a thinking person to suspect the bullet had exited at the place where the tracheotomy incision had been made, a
suspicion confirmed in Humes's call to Dr. Perry.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
Source ?
https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf

The connection between the back wound and the throat wound begins with the last sentence on page 4 of the above report
and continues on to page 6 where the damage to the strap muscles and trachea are documented.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
Yes, that's what intelligent people do. They don't look for convoluted explanations when a simple one is available.
Post by Gil Jesus
What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
The agreed with the original report that said a missile entered JFK's back and exited from his throat.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
How many times do you need it explained to you way a probe would not pass easily through a bullet track?
Post by Gil Jesus
The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
So now you want to rely on FBI agents to interpret the medical evidence. You really are a silly little man.
Post by Gil Jesus
Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Yes it is and I have the intelligence to know medical professionals should interpret the medical evidence. You're the other
guy.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-07 19:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:58:11 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that no bullet remained in JFK's throat. No bullet was found anywhere in JFK''s body.
Xrays showed no bullet in the body.
At what time were the Xrays taken ?
Does it matter? Do you think bullets just dissolve after a few hours?
Since the back wound was provably an entrance, process of elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.
Forensic pathology doesn't depend on "process of elimination". The prosectors never even saw the bullet hole in the throat.
They came to a conclusion about a wound they never even saw. But that's evidence to knuckleheads like you.
Unlike you they were not simpletons. They could process information.
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienant.
Post by JE Corbett
They had an entry wound in the back, contusions to
the pleura and strap muscles, and damage to the trachea. This trail of damage led to the tracheotomy incision which would
lead a thinking person to suspect the bullet had exited at the place where the tracheotomy incision had been made
How did this evidence lead you to believe it was an exit, and not an
entrance?

Just *WHAT* evidence showed the direction?
Post by JE Corbett
a suspicion confirmed in Humes's call to Dr. Perry.
When was this call made?
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy, a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound
to the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles, to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision
that was made over the bullet wound in the throat.
Source ?
https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf
So you just lied, right? Nowhere in there does it mention taking out
the trachea.
Post by JE Corbett
The connection between the back wound and the throat wound begins with the last sentence on page 4 of the above report
and continues on to page 6 where the damage to the strap muscles and trachea are documented.
And the support for your lie about what was taken out of the body??
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,
Really ? You're basing your conclusions on a "straightforward explanation" ?
Yes, that's what intelligent people do. They don't look for convoluted explanations when a simple one is available.
But your "simple" one doesn't explain the known facts.

Such as the evidence for an entry wound in the throat.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
What did the prosectors say ? You remember, your "forensic pathological experts" ?
The agreed with the original report that said a missile entered JFK's back and exited from his throat.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that, "we were unable to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." ( 2 H 361 )
Corbutt ran.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
When asked if they inserted a probe into the back wound, Dr. Finck told the ARRB that, "we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful." ( ARRB deposition of Pierre Finck, 5.24.96, pg. 92 )
Corbutt ran.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that the probe only went in a "very short distance. Only three inches about". ( ARRB deposition of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell 2.26.96, pg. 119 )
Corbutt ran.
Post by JE Corbett
How many times...
Do we need to point out your cowardice & lies?


As often as you post them.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
The Siebert/ O'Neill report states on page 5 that, "Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the END OF THE OPENING COULD BE FELT WITH THE FINGER." The report goes on to say that, "THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT."
So now you want to rely on FBI agents to interpret the medical evidence. You really are a silly little man.
So now you want to disregard eyewitnesses to the autpsy that are
CORROBORATED by the doctors... you really are a stupid little boy.
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Is that the "what the medical evidence indicates" that you were talking about ?
Yes it is...
ROTFLMAO!!! You lose!
recip...@gmail.com
2023-12-06 01:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Depends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?

It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
JE Corbett
2023-12-06 04:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Depends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?
It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
More powerful than the .38 Colt but less so than the .357 Magnum. That latter has the same diameter as the .38 Special
which is why a .357 Magnum revolver can fire .38 Special ammo.

The kind of low penetrating bullet Gil and Yellowpanties are talking about would be the .22LR. That is the caliber of bullet
Sirhan used to kill RFK. Even that round passed through the skull wall and penetrated to the brain stem, so it is highly
unlikely that even a bullet that weak would make just a shallow entry into JFK's throat. John Hinckley also used a .22 to
shoot Ronald Reagan. That bullet entered Reagan's chest below his right armpit and came dangerously close to his heart.
Even the pipsqueak .22LR has more penetrating power than what the Dynamic Duo are postulating. Maybe a Saturday Night
Special would make such a shallow wound. The best marksman in the world would have trouble making an accurate shot
with that kind of gun at more than 50 feet.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-06 15:47:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:50:47 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/FaYkf0XXmhc
Depends on the circumstances. What was the caliber of the gun, it's muzzle velocity, and the range? What did it actually hit?
It's worth noting that the bullet that killed Oswald traversed all the say through his torso left to right and front to back. That was .38 special, which is not exactly known for its penetrating ability.
More powerful than the .38 Colt but less so than the .357 Magnum. That latter has the same diameter as the .38 Special
which is why a .357 Magnum revolver can fire .38 Special ammo.
The kind of low penetrating bullet Gil and Yellowpanties are talking about...
You're lying again, Corbutt.

You'll **NEVER** quote any such statement by me. You're simply making
things up. Do it again, and I'll release the information I have on
your child molestion charges.
Loading...