How to convince a non-believer

[Bob]

Please see this regarding the back wound...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60vU41qoflU

[ThomZajac]

Thanks,Bob. But I am hoping you can help me out with something; I remember someone signing a receipt for a recovered missle/bullet. I can't remember who (FBI?) or where (Parkland or Bethesda). I'll try looking it up, but I thought you might know.

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:Thanks,Bob. But I am hoping you can help me out with something; I remember someone signing a receipt for a recovered missle/bullet. I can't remember who (FBI?) or where (Parkland or Bethesda). I'll try looking it up, but I thought you might know.I'm not the great Oz , but I vaguely recall something like that as well. I will also try to find out for sure. The video I just posted said that an Admiral present during JFK's autopsy in Bethesda ordered the the docs NOT to probe for a bullet though.

[ThomZajac]

Bob wrote-"I'm not the great Oz..."Well, I am glad that mystery has been solved- so much for thinking Bob was the 'easy' button.I will see if I can find the missile receipt stuff-

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:Bob wrote-"I'm not the great Oz..."Well, I am glad that mystery has been solved- so much for thinking Bob was the 'easy' button.I will see if I can find the missile receipt stuff-Speaking of Oz...sometimes people think this of me ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUIDepending on the question, sometimes I am the easy button, especially regarding certain sports and teams. My JFK knowledge is pretty good, but I'm always anxoius to learn more. That's why I LOVE this forum.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Brian White wrote:Katisha- all you have to do is ask someone to read James Files' confessionand review the rest of this website- if that doesn't convince them, forget it.None are so blind as they who won't see-write them off as being sufferersof craniorectal fusion syndrome-meaning,their head is up their ass!Brian. Craniorectal, eh? LOL That's too good. What really bugs me is the people who know better and who are actively trying to disinform people, like McAdams (aka Mr. Nolan, right?), Gary Mack-the-Sack (aka Larry Dunkel), Gerald "The Poser" Posner, and Dale "Similation" Myers. Isn't it interesting that Mack (Dunkel) and McAdams (Nolan) have aliases? What's up with that?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ThomZajac wrote:Bob Franklin wrote:"Yup. also remember the LN rallying phrase "slumped forward". As you noted, blood doesn't flow upward. There goes that "laying prone" argument Thom's lawyer friend might use."I realize these points are dicey, and ultimately we are all more or less on the same page as to what actually happened, but we do differ on what is conclusive evidence and what is not. Bob, I think you may have misunderstood the laying prone comment; it referred to the ride to Parkland, while he lay lifeless next to his wife. HIs head could very well been higher than shoulder, and the blood could have flowed from a head wound to the left shoulder. Again, I'm not saying that's what did happen, only that a lone nutter could somewhat reasonably claim that is how the blood got there.Pasquale, I recent took an engineer to see Richard Gage's (a 911 truther, architect) presentation on the fall of the three towers. Again, I am in your camp as to what actually happened, but conclusive proof is not as simple as you might think. This engineer, for example, was convinced that Building 7 was brought down by explosives (placed in the building by authorities AFTER the building had been damaged by falling debris and fire), but that the Twin Towers came down due to catastrophic failures caused by jet impact, and the subsequent fire made very hot by massive amounts of jet fuel. He argues that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speeds, but NEARLY free fall speeds. He is a smart guy, and he is sincere in his viewpoint. I also think he is wrong, of course. but my point is that what may appear to be an open and shut case to us may not be to others.I have a great deal of respect for what's been posted on this thread, and the last thing I want to do is argue things point by point from the perspective of the lone nutters. I was just trying to shine some light onto how they think. Katisha is trying to come up with the best way to convince a lone nutter that a conspiracy killed JFK, and frankly, I don't think her odds are very good that she will for the reasons I've mentioned; the attempt can very much be like trying to take the curl out of a pig's tail.I'm going to split hairs here again.What kind of engineer is your friend? I'm just curious, and not being funny. Is he a structural engineer? The common sense point that the engineer is missing is that 100-story buildings don't just come down in 10 seconds. When he says they came down at "near" free-fall speed is funny when you consider that actual free-fall speed might be a second or two off. For them to fall at even near free fall speed like that, the lower floors would have to offer no resistance at all. Does he realize this? Regarding WTC 7, there is no news report or any admission by ANYONE that it was brought down with explosives after it was supposedly structurally damaged. That is not the official story. The official story is that it came down on its own. No jet fuel was involved. The truth of the matter is that the engineer you're talking to needs to know this. WTC 7 supposedly just came down all on its own, just like the taller towers did, but it wasn't hit by a plane and not soaked in jet fuel.Also, no other steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed from fire. Also, the Empire State building was hit by a US Army bomber accidentally, of course, in 1945. It started a fire and all that, and it didn't collapse. Also, the jet fuel is basically jet-grade kerosein. It doesn't burn hot enough. Steel is melted and brought to a temperature where it can be bent in a controlled environment like a blast furnace. What kind of engineer is your friend? I mean specifically what kind of engineering does he do?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ThomZajac wrote:Bob Franklin wrote:"Yup. also remember the LN rallying phrase "slumped forward". As you noted, blood doesn't flow upward. There goes that "laying prone" argument Thom's lawyer friend might use."I realize these points are dicey, and ultimately we are all more or less on the same page as to what actually happened, but we do differ on what is conclusive evidence and what is not. Bob, I think you may have misunderstood the laying prone comment; it referred to the ride to Parkland, while he lay lifeless next to his wife. HIs head could very well been higher than shoulder, and the blood could have flowed from a head wound to the left shoulder. Again, I'm not saying that's what did happen, only that a lone nutter could somewhat reasonably claim that is how the blood got there.Pasquale, I recent took an engineer to see Richard Gage's (a 911 truther, architect) presentation on the fall of the three towers. Again, I am in your camp as to what actually happened, but conclusive proof is not as simple as you might think. This engineer, for example, was convinced that Building 7 was brought down by explosives (placed in the building by authorities AFTER the building had been damaged by falling debris and fire), but that the Twin Towers came down due to catastrophic failures caused by jet impact, and the subsequent fire made very hot by massive amounts of jet fuel. He argues that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speeds, but NEARLY free fall speeds. He is a smart guy, and he is sincere in his viewpoint. I also think he is wrong, of course. but my point is that what may appear to be an open and shut case to us may not be to others.I have a great deal of respect for what's been posted on this thread, and the last thing I want to do is argue things point by point from the perspective of the lone nutters. I was just trying to shine some light onto how they think. Katisha is trying to come up with the best way to convince a lone nutter that a conspiracy killed JFK, and frankly, I don't think her odds are very good that she will for the reasons I've mentioned; the attempt can very much be like trying to take the curl out of a pig's tail.Here's a little more about 9/11. The same jet-grade kerosein is used in portable heaters that are used in homes. Think of what it takes to even weaken steel. You can use any of your pots and pans on a stove all day, and they don't weaken. Why? They don't burn hot enough.

[ThomZajac]

This is from Spartacus..."James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, FD 302 report (22nd November, 1963)During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.A call was made by Bureau agents to the Firearms Section of the FBI Laboratory, at which time SA Charles L. Killion advised that the Laboratory had received through Secret Service Agent Richard Johnson a bullet which had reportedly been found on a stretcher in the emergency room of Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. This stretcher had also contained a stethoscope and pair of rubber gloves. Agent Johnson had advised the Laboratory that it had not been ascertained whether or not this was the stretcher which had been used to transport the body of President Kennedy. Agent Killion further described this bullet as pertaining to a 6.5 millimeter rifle which would be approximately a 25 caliber rifle and that this bullet consisted of a copper alloy full jacket.Immediately following receipt of this information, this was made available to Dr. Humes who advised that in his opinion this accounted for no bullet being located which had entered the back region and that since external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital, it was entirely possible that through such movement the bullet had worked its way back out of the point of entry and had fallen on the stretcher." (2) William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005)O'Neill went on to say there was no cutting of the body of the president until the X-rays were developed. "Humes pointed out to Sibert and I the many fragments of bullets and skull that was in the skull cavity." He does not mention seeing the sliver of what appears to be a bullet in the right part of the skull, which is quite obvious in the frontal X-ray (photo 7) and should have been mentioned in the 302 report that Sibert and O'Neill made from their notes-nor does O'Neill remember seeing this metal fragment when the ARRB showed him the Kennedy AP X-ray during his testimony in 1997, indicating, I believe, that the X-rays now in the archives are indeed composites, as suggested by Dr. David Mantik. Mantik has run tests on the X-rays and believes they are composites, i.e., forgeries. I believe O'Neill holds part of the key to this and gives confirmation to Mantik's suspicions, even though, because of his nature and background as a government agent and later State Congressman, he is incapable of believing that John E Kennedy was killed as a result of a government conspiracy. Plainly he has not studied the case in all aspects, e.g., the Dallas witnesses to the assassination, the paper trail of documents, the actions and inaction of the Secret Service in the days leading up to and including the aftermath of the assassination, and, of course, what happened at the Bethesda morgue. He holds keys he does not know he possesses, keys locked in memory.The most stunning portion of the manuscript on Kennedy that O'Neill sent me was yet to come: "Humes pointed the many fragments of bullets or skull that was in the skull cavity. Parts of the brain were still within the cavity, but not much." (emphasis mine) This fits directly with Paul O'Connor's recollection that when President Kennedy was taken from the casket and the sheets were unwrapped from around the head, there was no brain to be removed; only fragments were left inside the cranium...O'Neill says in his unpublished work that no cutting was done on the body until the X-rays were developed. "The X-rays were returned to a small room within the autopsy room and viewed." O'Neill goes on to say the head wound was "massive": "Humes pointed out to Sibert and myself the gaping wound at the right rear of the president's head and the tremendous damage done to the brain therein." He goes on to explain that Humes had started the autopsy by doing the Y-incision on the chest - "of course, after he dictated the normal procedural information relative to his observations in relation to the body." O'Neill then says that "Pierre Ruck from the crimes institute [Armed Forces Institute of Pathology] arrived at that time to help with the procedure." Humes then "indicated the bullet had fragmented upon hitting the skull" and removed two fragments of metal. "He measured one and told Sibert and me it was 7 by 2 millimeters. The other one was measured 1 by 3 millimeters." They placed the fragments in a glass jar. The agents then signed a receipt "for both missiles." O'Neill then claims that he and Sibert helped turn Kennedy's body over. "The first thing that everyone noticed was the large scar on the president's back due to an operative procedure."I'm still looking for more on this- I remember seeing a copy of the receipt long, long ago.....

[ThomZajac]

Katisha, here's a good link ( I just can't give up on getting he curl out of the pig's tail)-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdi ... annel_page