Who killed President Kennedy

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Actually we can add "disappearing" to that list.

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

Would you describe the wound as "back of the neck" like Jerry Ford did?

Just another "factual error" of the WC.

[RQA]

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

Of course you won't answer the question about the back wound location...changed in the report by Jerry Ford. Was that the "back of the neck"?

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Of course you won't answer the question about the back wound location...changed in the report by Jerry Ford. Was that the "back of the neck"?

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

Of course you continue not to answer my question; was the wound of JFK's in the back or "back of the neck"?

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

[Leonidas]

So RQA agrees with Jerry Ford that the wound is the "back of the neck"?

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

So RQA agrees with Jerry Ford that the wound is the "back of the neck"?

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

.

So you agree with Jerry Ford that the wound is the "back of the neck"?

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

So you agree with Jerry Ford that the wound is the "back of the neck"?

You guys still goin on this "neck wound" thing?

Just a refresher:

*The holes in JFK's shirt and coat place the wound five to six inches below the collar line. * Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck.

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. Emphasis on thoracic (not cervical)

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra.

* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, at the morgue, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" Hill's placement of the wound corresponds to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.
* The Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck .
* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back".

* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back.



BTW, just finished an excellent book, "JFK: The Cuba Files". It is written by Fabian Escalante, Head of Cuba's Department of State Security. They did a thorough investigation of the JFK assassination and determined it was, without question, a CIA operation.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

You guys still goin on this "neck wound" thing?

Just a refresher:

*The holes in JFK's shirt and coat place the wound five to six inches below the collar line. * Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck.

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. Emphasis on thoracic (not cervical)

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra.

* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, at the morgue, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" Hill's placement of the wound corresponds to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.
* The Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck .
* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back".

* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back.



BTW, just finished an excellent book, "JFK: The Cuba Files". It is written by Fabian Escalante, Head of Cuba's Department of State Security. They did a thorough investigation of the JFK assassination and determined it was, without question, a CIA operation.

RQA isn't going to like this...this all goes against the lone nut "magic bullet" fantasy!

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

You guys still goin on this "neck wound" thing?

Just a refresher:

*The holes in JFK's shirt and coat place the wound five to six inches below the collar line. * Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck.

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. Emphasis on thoracic (not cervical)

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra.

* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, at the morgue, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" Hill's placement of the wound corresponds to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.
* The Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck .
* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back".

* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back.

Do you guys ever have an original thought? You have just copied and pasted Michael Griffiths talking points on the back wound. In typical conspiracy nut fashion you post about 10 things expecting us to believe that some of it must be true. The only truth is that a big pile of horse s**t is still horse s**t. If you would like to discuss one of Griffith's points please pick the one you want me to destroy and embarass you in the process.

BTW, just finished an excellent book, "JFK: The Cuba Files". It is written by Fabian Escalante, Head of Cuba's Department of State Security. They did a thorough investigation of the JFK assassination and determined it was, without question, a CIA operation.

BTW, just finished and excellent book, "9-11 Descent into Tyranny". It is written by Alex Jones. He did a thorough investigation of the 9/11 attacks and determined it was, without question, a government operaton.

Sincerely,
roundhead, chachi, leo, spartanic

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA

Leo, this thread is going nowhere. You leap from unrelated point to unrelated point and never feel you need to answer a question. Typical conspiracy nut strategy. In fact I am betting you will answer this post with a picture of the badgeman

Anyway, time to grow up. If you want to continue this discussion you must answer as well as ask questions.

The (recent) questions you are refusing to answer are:

1. What are the mistakes in the Italian study you are so eager to refer to? If you are unable to, at least admit it, I will point them out to you and we can move on.

2. Why did you post a picture of Kennedy's shirt but not the actual wound?

Please provide some specific answers to these questions or else you can continue to discuss the JFK killing in the same way you have sex. By yourself.

[RQA]

Both of you have post after post to comment on the back wound. Neither of you will post a picture of it. Wonder why?

[Spartanic]

I can understand people believing in the lone nut fantasy if they only have limited understanding and exposure to the events. That would be a case of simply not knowing any better.

What is truly embarassing is for someone who has been exposed to a good sampling of the available evidence still defending the lone nut fantasy.

I can see RQA still relies on name-calling and insulting as his primary argument. Sad, but absolutely typical of most of the group that defends the LHO did it fantasy.

You have never embarrassed anyone but yourself in this discussion.

Maybe someday you will figure that out.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

I can understand people believing in the lone nut fantasy if they only have limited understanding and exposure to the events. That would be a case of simply not knowing any better.

What is truly embarassing is for someone who has been exposed to a good sampling of the available evidence still defending the lone nut fantasy.

I have forgotten more about this case than you know, Spartanic. ALL of the evidence points to LHO as the lone killer. You have provided ZERO evidence. You fellow conspiracy nuts have provided ZERO evidence. If you have some evidence PLEASE let us in on it. A cut and paste rendition of some conspiracy web site is not evidence. Take it as a challenge. List one piece of actual evidence that proves a conspiracy. I will be waiting.

I can see RQA still relies on name-calling and insulting as his primary argument. Sad, but absolutely typical of most of the group that defends the LHO did it fantasy.

My primary argument has been the actual evidence of the case. If you read back through the thread you will see it is I and a few of my allies that have provided the actual evidence. You and your ilk have provided pictures of the badgeman, lies about the timing of the shot, lies about the motorcade route and on and on. The best one of all was Leo's picture of the stripper who knew about the whole plot ahead of time. Did you see that one??

You have never embarrassed anyone but yourself in this discussion.

Maybe someday you will figure that out.

roundhead and chachi don't they have been embarrassed either. You are in good company.

[Lochgelly]

Originally Posted by RQA

You have provided ZERO evidence. You fellow conspiracy nuts have provided ZERO evidence.

Once again..repeating this mantra does not make it true...

Look you guys won...you sucessfully covered up the crime of the century...congratulations...too much time has gone by...too mnay people are dead now....the real truth will never be uncovered....

But to continue to state that the conpiracy people have provided NO evidence is stupid...you may not like the evidence or you may disagree with the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence...but to say NO evidence...well...that only shows how close minded you are...

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

Once again..repeating this mantra does not make it true...

Look you guys won...you sucessfully covered up the crime of the century...congratulations...too much time has gone by...too mnay people are dead now....the real truth will never be uncovered....

But to continue to state that the conpiracy people have provided NO evidence is stupid...you may not like the evidence or you may disagree with the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence...but to say NO evidence...well...that only shows how close minded you are...

Once again you state there is all kinds of evidence, yet like leo and spartanic fail to provide any.

running to a smoking gun on the grassy knoll is not evidence

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

...Take it as a challenge. List one piece of actual evidence that proves a conspiracy. I will be waiting.
...

I gave you a bunch of evidence a long time ago you never answered. You asked for one piece of evidence. OK. Here you go:

Explain the duplicate Mannlicher Carcanos. I gave you full details on this before, including comparison pictures. The first one is the supposed murder weapon featured in Life Magazine just after the assassination (Warren Commision). The second is the one ln the national archives in 1983. They have the same serial number... but they are two different rifles.
Further, There are also differences in the famous "Oswald holding the rifle in his backyard" photo. In the photo, there is a bottom mounted circular sling ring. The TSBD rifle has no bottom mounted ring on it .... it is an oval side mounted ring.

You never came up with an answer the first time. You dodged off to a different subject just like you always did each time you did not have an answer.

Now don't change the subject. Don't call people names. Just deal with that evidence and tell me in plain English why the FBI has two nearly identical "copies" of the supposed murder weapon.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

running to a smoking gun on the grassy knoll is not evidence

really?

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

really?

Nothing that contradicts the "lone nut fallacy" is considered evidence by rqa.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

I gave you a bunch of evidence a long time ago you never answered. You asked for one piece of evidence. OK. Here you go:

Explain the duplicate Mannlicher Carcanos. I gave you full details on this before, including comparison pictures. The first one is the supposed murder weapon featured in Life Magazine just after the assassination (Warren Commision). The second is the one ln the national archives in 1983. They have the same serial number... but they are two different rifles.
Further, There are also differences in the famous "Oswald holding the rifle in his backyard" photo. In the photo, there is a bottom mounted sling ring. The TSBD rifle has no ring on it ....

You never came up with an answer the first time. You dodged off to a different subject just like you always did each time you did not have an answer.

Now don't change the subject. Don't call people names. Just deal with that evidence and tell me in plain English why the FBI has two nearly identical "copies" of the supposed murder weapon.

No one but a conspiracy nut would make any use of the Life photos. They were retouched by the magazine to enhance their quality for publication. You did know that didn't you? If you did, yet, tried to pass them off as some sort of contradiction than you are dishonest. If you didn't know that, then you have just learned something.


Next....................

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA

Once again you state there is all kinds of evidence, yet like leo and spartanic fail to provide any.

running to a smoking gun on the grassy knoll is not evidence

Originally Posted by Leo

really?

Not unless you can find a gun used in 1963 that produces enough smoke to be seen from the other side of Dealey Plaza

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

The TSBD rifle has no ring on it ....

Oh really? Then what is holding the rifle's sling?

[RQA]

Here is the TSBD rifle. Notice it has a sling. Notice what it is attached to at the top. A ring!!