Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[Hans]

Oh, Yeah.

Hank

Unfortunately you may have to downgrade your expectations....just sayin'.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes it is, but that aside, how did the bullet deposit a 6.5 mm fragment on the outside of the scull and after thus entering the scull in one piece making a neat round 6.5 entrance hole?

Did it? Explain. Argue.

 

[abaddon]

I wish it was so.

Your pot seems to have a fissure.

 

[manifesto]

Hope

You hope that it is self evident?

 

[manifesto]

Your pot seems to have a fissure.

Your fissure seems to have a pot.

 

[manifesto]

Did it? Explain. Argue.

It is Axxman who says that the the object is a bulllet fragment. Not me.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, why not release his IRS tax records? 54 years later and still withhold? Why is that?

Did you ever read the thread and figure out the problem with your complaint here?

Or are you still in the dark about why your complaint is misdirected?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Your own misinterpretation of the facts and evidence gathered that day and the days that followed. No information gained implies multiple shooters, just your perverse interpretation of history. Your finest bit of misinformation continues to be the dicta-belt. We have shown you links to many who have disproven the sounds are multiple shots.

Since when does a ”link” disprove anything outside the Mighty Church?

Then you trot out an image of an x-ray the contrast of which has been severely manipulated to "show a 6.5 mm object." The original image is much more washed out with the "object" almost hidden in the rest of the image.

It shines like a lighthouse both from in front and from the side.

I'm not an expert but it doesn't appear to be a round object but a round object with a "pie shaped piece" missing.

Yes it is perfectly round with a notch in it.

Perhaps an artifact of the developing process?

No. It shows up both from in front and from the side.

Or artifact of the bullet lodged in or near the eye socket.

No. It is clearly visible on the outside of the scull at the back of the head, ca 1 cm below the (new) entrance wound.

Axxmann300 has show you that much of the round is/was never found.

What? Much of ”the round”?

 

[bknight]

Since when does a ”link” disprove anything outside the Mighty Church?


It shines like a lighthouse both from in front and from the side.

Yes it is perfectly round with a notch in it.

No. It shows up both from in front and from the side.

No. It is clearly visible on the outside of the scull at the back of the head, ca 1 cm below the (new) entrance wound.

What? Much of ”the round”?

Links by themselves don't disprove anything it is what is contained in the links that debunks your pet theories. You should read them. As I indicated the contrast of the x-ray has been severely changed, if you view the original it is very faint. Look it up and you will see the difference between the one in the report and the originals.

 

[HSienzant]

Since when does a ”link” disprove anything outside the Mighty Church?

Uh, anytime you do it?

Double-Standard much?

Only 12%, not a majority, even in Sweden.

No, you are wrong:
216 Witnesses

52 Knoll
48 Depository
5 Knoll & Depository
4 Elsewhere
37 Could Not Tell

70 Not Asked
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

You cited a link to disprove AxxMan's contention that 12% of the witnesses named the knoll. The problem is the link you cited named a lot of people as knoll witnesses who didn't actually name the knoll, and in some cases named THE DEPOSITORY.

The list was wrong, as you admitted at times , then retracted when you understood where that was getting you:

But I agree, Davis and Kounas should be removed from the ”knoll” category.

Here I agree, Potter should be in the could not tell-category.... Still, most of the asked witnesses.[emphasis added]

49 of 216 is not 'most'.

Your own site says there were 146 who named a location, or when asked, said they "could not tell".

Even taking the original (inflated) claim of 52 it's still wrong. 52 of 146 is not 'most'. 49 of 146 is not 'most'. Neither is 40 of 146.

You keep claiming stuff even your own cited experts disagree with. You did it when you cited Sherry Fiester on the blood spatter - but she claimed the head shot came from the south knoll near Commerce Street, not the north knoll near Elm Street.

You do it here again with the 'most' claim, but your own source doesn't say 'most'.

This was shown to be a false claim in the recent past, yet you are repeating it anew. Why?

Here's where I pointed out you went from claiming a majority of all witnesses to most of the witnesses who were asked to name a location. I pointed out both claims were false.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12291889&postcount=3184

And I summed it up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12303779&postcount=3587

Since then, you've admitted another witness (Nolan Potter) should not be named as a knoll witness but was so named on your cited list. I also pointed out that another witness (James Crawford) identified the DEPOSITORY as the source of the shots by the time of the third shot (and said as much to a co-worker within seconds of that final shot) and looked up in time to see a gunman move out of the window, but you apparently intend to keep insisting he's a knoll witness like your website claims.

You apparently don't want it to go to 48 Knoll vs. 49 TSBD.

We've also seen if we use your logic to salvage Kounas and Davis as knoll witnesses, you lose the eight overpass witnesses and the two men in the lead car (Curry and Sorrels). Here's my pointing out the problem with your logic in trying to salvage Kounas and Davis:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12305687&postcount=3658

Hank

 

[Hans]

evident?

The word evident is close in spelling to evidence aren't you afraid you will burst into flames by using it?

 

[HSienzant]

Anyone can see there is a lot of bullet material that was never recovered.

Axxmann300 has show you that much of the round is/was never found.

What? Much of ”the round”?

"Round" is another word for "bullet cartridge" in English.

I only learned that listening to Steve Allen on the old Tonight Show.

He was talking about watching Cowboy movies and how, as a city kid, he didn't understand what a "round" was. He thought it was some indeterminate large number - like a thousand bullets. It's not. It's one bullet.

And so, as he watched the Cowboy movie, the the guys in the covered wagons would be surrounded by Native Americans on horseback, and the settlers would be hunched down behind the covered wagons trying to avoid the arrows and getting off an occasional shot. And the dialogue would go something like:

Bob would shout, "Chuck, how many rounds you got left?"
And Chuck would shout back, "I got two. How about you?"
And Bob's response would be, "I got three."​

And Steve would think, "Oh, they can hold out all day!"

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

It is Axxman who says that the the object is a bulllet fragment. Not me.

No, I was giving an option for that fraudulent "peer reviewed" report by that quack, and pointing out that there are obviously parts of the missile never recovered.

And yes, YOU were claiming it was a SLICE OF A BULLET...and now you're running away from that claim.

 

[Axxman300]

What? Much of ”the round”?

Round: Bullet, Missile.

Quite the ballistics expert you are.

 

[HSienzant]

Unfortunately you may have to downgrade your expectations....just sayin'.

Understood. I have no expectation he will suddenly start answering the questions posed to him at any time. Still, there is a backlog of questions he's avoided in the past, in the recent past, is avoiding now, and will no doubt avoid in the future.

Hank

 

[Hans]

"Round" is another word for "bullet cartridge" in English.

I only learned that listening to Steve Allen on the old Tonight Show.

Additionally round came from the use of the word round shot or cannon balls for cannons and musket shot was balls or ball ammunition that were....well round.

 

[HSienzant]

Round: Bullet, Missile.

Quite the ballistics expert you are.

A guy who comes on here and proclaims how well-read on the subject he is doesn't know what a round is. It does have bearing on the question "How much else doesn't Manifesto know, and when does Manifesto know he doesn't know it?"

Hank

 

[Hans]

Round: Bullet, Missile.

Quite the ballistics expert you are.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is Axxman who says that the the object is a bulllet fragment. Not me.

Is it? Link to the relevant post. Explain.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is no thought police among critics of the official explanatications of the assassination of JFK. That would be like an oxymoron.

Are you saying that you just have different opinions? Or different facts? You can't both be right so which of you is wrong?