Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The Connallys, Greer and Kellermann all testified that they were hit by blood, brain and other material that ejected from JFK's head. Connally said a piece of brain the size of his thumbnail landed on him. The front of the limo, the interior, the hood, were all covered with this blood/matter. The Zapruder film shows this blood/brain/matter exploding up and forward. As DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis, riding right behind JFK, said: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." That is, he saw no "splash" come out of the back of the head.

We have eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, x-rays, photos and a film corroborating this.

There is no way a bullet can exit/explode out of JFK's head in the back and for this to happen. And yes, I am aware of the 40 back of the head witnesses. Their accounts are not corroborated by anything else.

Or you can believe, as Dr. Mantik does, that all of this was fake, the Connallys et al lied, the films/x-rays/phots were all faked, and the examination of the limo was staged.

If you believe Dr. Mantik's claims then there is nothing to persuade you otherwise. You'll just dismiss it as fake.

[Richard Smith]

Two shooters mean a conspiracy.

Nobody said otherwise

Whoever your two shooters might be, it would involve a conspiracy if two shooters were involved, and the autopsy was faked.   

Yes, that's true, and I said as much

Exactly as I stated.

No, not exactly as you stated;

This is what you really said;

As John said; no x-ray or autopsy can tell you who the assassin was.

Did you say something about learning to read? Take your own advice!

Again, why are you not assisting him in taking this to the NY Times to share in the Pulitzer Prize?  Why would anyone waste their time on an Internet forum if they had compelling evidence that demonstrates a CONSPIRACY and contradicts the WC"s conclusion that LHO was the lone assassin?  And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.  It is certainly a bizarre argument, even from a not too bright contrarian, to claim that autopsy results can't aid us in determining who the killer was in a crime.  Unreal.   If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.  You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, why are you not assisting him in taking this to the NY Times to share in the Pulitzer Prize?  Why would anyone waste their time on an Internet forum if they had compelling evidence that demonstrates a CONSPIRACY and contradicts the WC"s conclusion that LHO was the lone assassin?  And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.  It is certainly a bizarre argument, even from a not too bright contrarian, to claim that autopsy results can't aid us in determining who the killer was in a crime.  Unreal.   If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.  You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.   

And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.

That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?

If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.

That's true. But what evidence was it exactly that allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.   

The biggest fool is he who overestimates his own "intelligence" and calls others stupid, just because he doesn't understand what they say.

[Richard Smith]

And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.

That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?

If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.

That's true. But what evidence was it exactly that allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.   

The biggest fool is he who overestimates his own "intelligence" and calls others stupid, just because he doesn't understand what they say.

So I won't be reading about this in the NY Times anytime soon?  LOL.  Of all the idiotic claims you have made on this forum, and they are numerous, the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.  And you were so quick to parrot that nonsense from your contrarian sidekick not even pausing to consider the astounding stupidity of it.  Pure comedy gold.

[Martin Weidmann]

So I won't be reading about this in the NY Times anytime soon?  LOL.  Of all the idiotic claims you have made on this forum, and they are numerous, the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.  And you were so quick to parrot that nonsense from your contrarian sidekick not even pausing to consider the astounding stupidity of it.  Pure comedy gold.

the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.

So, you still haven't understood after all. Let's try baby steps.... the autopsy can possibly shed a light on the number of assassins, but it can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were. If fact, the autopsy did in no way identify Oswald as the assassin or even contribute to such an identification.

Btw, am I to conclude due to the lack of an answer to my question that you really haven't got a clue what evidence allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Now, why doesn't that surprise me?

[Richard Smith]

the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.

So, you still haven't understood after all. Let's try baby steps.... the autopsy can possibly shed a light on the number of assassins, but it can shed no light whatsoever of who the assassin(s) was/were. If fact, the autopsy did in no way identify Oswald as the assassin or even contribute to such an identification.

Btw, am I to conclude due to the lack of an answer to my question that you really haven't got a clue what evidence allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Now, why doesn't that surprise me?

You are really doubling down on this?  HA HA HA.  Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.  Quincy M.D. you aren't.  Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation.    Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect.  Just repeating idiotic general comments like "it can shed no light on who the assassin was" as though there is no further context because your moronic sidekick said it and you embarrassed yourself by repeating it is amusing.   The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.  Whether you agree with its conclusion is the not point.  The autopsy result can lend support to that conclusion or eliminate that possibility.   And that has direct implications for the conclusion that LHO was the assassin.

[John Iacoletti]

And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.

No, an autopsy tells you nothing about who the killer was. And what “totality of the evidence”? You’ve steadfastly avoided ever enumerating this evidence.

Insulting people doesn’t make your nonsensical ramblings any less nonsensical.

[John Iacoletti]

That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?

On the very remote chance that he did understand his error, he would never admit it. You can always tell when “Richard” is beaten and humiliated — he starts slinging even more insults than usual. But he never slings any evidence.