Does this asshole guy really think members are going to bother to debate with someone who starts every post with " biased Kennedy haters"? I certainly won't be. ~shrug~
You may not like what I say, Denis, but it's very true. Go back to my thread above about what I posted. I know you won't but go anyway. Read it. Now tell me why not a single person here is willing to try to dispute what I'm saying? How can it be that during this reenactment they had the stickers on the Kennedy stand-in exactly where the injuries were on the body? How can it be that instead of not writing the obvious about those stickers, we then had a policitian pencil in "of neck" to further fudge the official record?
What else is there to say? Do you not find it the least bit intriguing to see those two stickers on that stand-in? Do you have any explanation at all of how a shot that hits that lower part of the back to then some how work its way up and exit where the throat sticker is on the other side? We're talking simple physics here, Denis. And per the autopsy the back wound DID NOT EVEN EXIT. Humes said as much...it terminated there and he could stick his finger into it and feel where ended. So what about that, Denis?
If you or anyone else is jumping around all over the place on this not facing the facts, then yes, your biased. What else is there? I liken it to the police investigator who hates prostitutes and then has to investigate one's murder. He's not going to give a vigorous and honest investigation because in his mind, she deserved it or whatever.
There's more than enough of that to go around in this case too. The truth hurts, Denis.
'Night John Boy. 'Night Mary Ellen.
