Forget Oswald and Who....The Number of Bullets & Shooters Proves Conspiracy

[Gary Craig]

"There may be a photo missing" is not the same thing as "there is a photo missing".


Highlight the part of Humes' testimony in which he refers to the existence of a photo that is currently missing.

 

The document from November 1966 says one thing.

Finck's after action report and Clark's taped phone call from January 1967 say something else.

Finck notes in his after action report that photos of the EOP wound in JFK's head, outside shot and inside

shot, which he requested be made, are not among the autopsy photos.

Odd don't you think that photos of the 2 wounds that were moved around are missing?

But you're Egyptian so that won't matter to you. You spend a lot of time in de-Nile.

[Tim Nickerson]

The document from November 1966 says one thing.

Finck's after action report and Clark's taped phone call from January 1967 say something else.

Finck notes in his after action report that photos of the EOP wound in JFK's head, outside shot and inside

shot, which he requested be made, are not among the autopsy photos.

Odd don't you think that photos of the 2 wounds that were moved around are missing?

But you're Egyptian so that won't matter to you. You spend a lot of time in de-Nile.

I'm not familiar with Finck's after action report. If photos that he requested be made are not among the existing photos then either the photos were never taken or ,if they were, they never turned out.

[John Iacoletti]

You kooks keep on ignoring the fact that the Parkland doctors did not see JFK's back and therefore did not see the neck/back entry wound.

Speaking for the doctors now, are you?

[Gary Craig]

I'm not familiar with Finck's after action report. If photos that he requested be made are not among the existing photos then either the photos were never taken or ,if they were, they never turned out.

[Ray Mitcham]

Brainless when you have no curiosity as to whether Bennett meant below the shoulder line or below the shoulder body mass. And it's brainless when one believes the clothing bunching didn't compromise the level of the wound in the the base of the back of the neck, but instead thinks the clothing on a near flat plane and hanging from a hanger is a better indication of the wound level.

It's a brainless question because we can't ask him what he meant.

Because 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder body mass would mean the bullet struck the kidney. But if you're alright with that, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the wounds.

He said it was 5 to 6inches below the shoulder because that's what he saw. Stop making up stories.

No surprise you didn't take anything away from it.

Posting immaterial illustrations is your usual MO.

If she mentions seeing the back wound there, let us know.

If you have read her testimony you know she didn't mention it, because she wasn't asked. Usual rule of questioning by the WC, don't ask a question you don't want the answer to.

Sure. Could be other reasons why Bowron got "inspired".

So your saying Boron was lying ?

Seems pertinent to explore what Hill meant by "about six inches below the neckline".

Certainly pertinent if we could ask him but  brainless question because we can't.

Given that the serious 3D studys and ballistics re-creations (you know, the kind of forensic analysis that critics can't and won't do) tend to support the salient features of the theory,

 "Dale Myers" RONTFLMAO. I'm going with that for now.

Of course you are that's all you have.

 "Dale Myers" ROTFLMAO.

"Err" Dummkopf can't even figure out how to get the rifle out the window.

What  on earth are you rambling about now? You been at the Jack Daniels again?

How we gonna do that, Ray? X-ray specs?

Probably the same way you want answer to the questions about Bennett and Hill. Try a seance.

The jacket bunch is the only visible indication we have that the clothing was raised up at the nape area. You can figure that one out, can't you?

So  typically of a Felucca you say just because we can't prove the shirt bunched up, means it did, because it must have!

[Gary Craig]

"There may be a photo missing" is not the same thing as "there is a photo missing".


Highlight the part of Humes' testimony in which he refers to the existence of a photo that is currently missing.

"There may be a photo missing" is not the same thing as "there is a photo missing"

It does mean it's missing when it's followed by:

"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that] we don't have."

================================================

Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html

Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon

Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation

Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos

-snip-

"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission
that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."

-snip-

"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the
neck and exited the front part."

-snip-

"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that]
we don't have."

-snip-

[Bill Chapman]

You know how stupid that sounds in English?

Not to mention the constant 'yelling'
Can you imagine debating these characters face-to-face?

Some time ago I suggested to Ernie that he write his posts in his native tongue then use Google Translate to produce relatively good English.

[Bill Chapman]

Have you posted one piece of evidence since you showed up last month?

The joke on you characters is that Kennedy knew it would be easy to get to him, and the irony is that he used the example of 'a nut in a tall building with a high-powered rifle'

Does that scenario ring a bell, Rob?