Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jim DiEugenio reviews Ed Souza's Undeniable Truths
#21
Tracy Riddle Wrote:The autopsy photos (that we've seen) are so poor; no one is using a pointer or finger to clearly indicate the location of bullet wounds. A ruler is sort of dangling out there for no particular reason. Many of the photos are hard to even orient properly.

There is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos, and the "wound" in the Fox 5 photo has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with
a shot from below.

It's not even a good fake job!

And yet according to the Sage Medical Experts like Wecht and Mantik and wanna-bes like Pat Speer and Martin Hay Fox 5 trumps not only physical evidence, but the consensus witness testimony and the properly prepared medical documents (Burkley death certificate, autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI report of the autopsy).

Intelligent people drawing idiotic conclusions.
Reply
#22
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Job #1 of the JFK cover-up was the suppression of the physical evidence.

The body was hijacked, and possibly altered.

The autopsists wanted to examine the clothing but were denied.

The body was buried.

The clothing evidence has been misrpresented/ignored for over 51 years, for reasons sinister and benign.

The USG had to ignore he clothing evidence because it proved conspiracy; Pet Researchers like Jim DiEugenio and friends ignore the clothing evidence most likely because it takes them places they can't go.

Jim, have you ever asked the question -- "What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?"

That's an uncomfortable question for people who simply can't do "high strange."

The bullets removed prior to the autopsy?

High strange.

Bullets designed to dissolve in the body and not show up in the autopsy?

Even more high strange.

Folks born before 1970 were influenced by James Bond -- they can't take that high tech weaponry stuff seriously.

Folks born after 1970 were more apt to be influenced by "The Matrix" films by Andy & Lana Wachowski.

Agent 007 -- government nobility and high tech weaponry.

Agent Smith -- government perfidy and high tech weaponry.

To a Millennial a high tech explanation for the JFK assassination is obvious -- to a Boomer that idea is embarrassing.


Simply a spectacular post Cliff.

DVP cannot even contemplate the FBI lying... or the SS or CIA providing fasle evidence. So he doesn't bother authenticating it.

Be it T3 or even T1, a bullet shot on a downward angle of 21 degrees cannot rise between the back and front... PERIOD.
Ford did what he did to coincide with Ryberg's drawing... nothing more. As Cliff preaches, the coat and shirt give it all away...

Can't argue away authentic physical evidence - the coat and shirt may be the only items of physical evidence which describes the assassination and not the conspiracy...

Well done...

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7050&stc=1] [Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7051&stc=1]


Attached Files
.jpg   FRAUD in the evidence - ryberg and ford - with skeleton overlay.jpg (Size: 238.42 KB / Downloads: 43)
.jpg   FRAUD in the evidence - ryberg and ford - the jacket shirt and bullet holes.jpg (Size: 543.79 KB / Downloads: 42)
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right.....
R. Hunter
Reply
#23
Cliff:

You don't have to do "high strange" to try and explain the bullets.

There was a receipt for a missile was there not?

Robert Morrow told me that he had a friend at the autopsy that night. That friend told him that they took a bullet out of JFK's back.

Now, do you really think no bullets or shells were found in DP? They you have not read my book Reclaiming Parkland.

But keep up with the "high strange" and "the Matrix."

Maybe you are trying to get people see bad movies and not read good books on the JFK case.

BTW Cliff, what is the last book you read on this case?
Reply
#24
Jim:

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Cliff:

You don't have to do "high strange" to try and explain the bullets.

There was a receipt for a missile was there not?

Two, iirc, bullet fragments taken from the head, were they not?

What evidence do you have that those missiles were taken from the back or the throat?


Robert Morrow told me that he had a friend at the autopsy that night. That friend told him that they took a bullet out of JFK's back.

Settles that issue.:Clap:

Then why did SA Sibert call the FBI Lab when the autopsists said they found no bullet in the back and no lane of exit?

They wanted to know if there were weapons that would leave no trace in an autopsy.

So a highly specific conspiracy theory was conjured up by the autopsists in order to conceal evidence of...conspiracy!



Now, do you really think no bullets or shells were found in DP?


So the bullets exited?

The bullet which entered JFK's throat ended up in DP?

Same with the back shot?

Both exited?

Is that what you're claiming?



They you have not read my book Reclaiming Parkland.

Anyone who brags about ignoring the physical evidence in a murder case has earned my disinterest.

But keep up with the "high strange" and "the Matrix."

Keep up with examining the Staff Support Group at Fort Detrick, MD?

You bet.

Why do you and your friends ignore obvious persons of interest indicated right there in the historical record?


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church...nseney.pdf


Maybe you are trying to get people see bad movies and not read good books on the JFK case.

You're trying to get people to think it was within the realm of possibility that JFK was shot twice in the back while leaving one set of bullet holes.

You're in no position to lead an inquisition.

You hang out with "high back wound" types.

Shame on you.


BTW Cliff, what is the last book you read on this case?

Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson.

Harriman in Laos was key to Kennedy's killing.
Reply
#25
Thank you much, David!
Reply
#26
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Thank you much, David!


Now you know I think the ice flechette is a decent possibility for the throat wound... or it may have been something that did not "melt away" and is the reason for the enlarged trach wound... they had to get it out of there before anyone would have a chance to find it which did not leave them the time to properly work on the skull... or maybe they got started and Humes et al finished the job...

You are aware Cliff that the FBI acknowledges that the SS told them they not only had CE399 but that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's ear... this memo is written DURING the autopsy and the FBI was making plans to acquire this bullet too.

We have the Johnson bullet, the Todd bullet, the 7.65 envelope, the use of sabots, the manhole cover bullet and on and on... there were well more than a few bullets in evidence at one time yet they all seemd to have faded into history.

As to the actual physical evidence of the body... If the process of probing the wounds was hidden, Sandra Spencer & Knudsen hidden, the bullets removed hidden (per O'Connor via Stringer I think said the removed a bullet from the intercostals on the right side) and no recrod of the opening of the neck or upper torso, yet we know this was done... is it really hard to fathem that the body contained other holes from the back? (or out the back from a frontal shot?)

Not that the Thorasic level hole was not there or even added later.... but who really knows what happened between 6:40 and 8pm in that Morgue other than the men who did it?

My suggestion has always been to only look at the Evidence as it relates to the Conspiracy, not the Crime... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...
Understanding that makes it so much easier to create a POV from which to learn from this inadvertent evidence.

I've asked repeatedly if there is any one item of authentic evidence of the assassination and completely forgot that the jacket and shirt are such items.

Jim - we are not IGNORING the physical evidence, just putting it in the proper perspective and context.

Can you name any other physical evidence which is indicative of what happened during the assassination rather than describing the conspiracy?

Respectfully
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right.....
R. Hunter
Reply
#27
*
David Josephs Wrote:
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Thank you much, David!


Now you know I think the ice flechette is a decent possibility for the throat wound... or it may have been something that did not "melt away" and is the reason for the enlarged trach wound... they had to get it out of there before anyone would have a chance to find it which did not leave them the time to properly work on the skull... or maybe they got started and Humes et al finished the job...

David,

Let's game out these two scenarios.

1) Pre-autopsy removal of the round which struck JFK in the throat and did not exit.

If this was a first-shot/kill-shot it missed the head and it was a short load.

Same with the back shot -- a miss, a short load.

What are the chances of a military-style ambush suffering from two misses and two short loads in the first two shots?

2) From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general
feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning
the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]
bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused
by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments
completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I
left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]
Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that
would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

"Ice bullets? You're joking!"

Serious Researchers of a certain age are culturally incapable of taking this scenario seriously.

The subject makes them feel foolish, which has led to a mass denial in regards to the physical evidence in JFK's murder.

If the COPA and Lancer Conferences were organized/attended/presented strictly by Millennials, this stuff would be micro-analyzed.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church...nseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church..._Colby.pdf




You are aware Cliff that the FBI acknowledges that the SS told them they not only had CE399 but that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's ear... this memo is written DURING the autopsy and the FBI was making plans to acquire this bullet too.

We have the Johnson bullet, the Todd bullet, the 7.65 envelope, the use of sabots, the manhole cover bullet and on and on... there were well more than a few bullets in evidence at one time yet they all seemd to have faded into history.

None of those rounds were associated with the back or throat wounds.

Those rounds entered and did not exit.

That's a root fact of the case.


As to the actual physical evidence of the body... If the process of probing the wounds was hidden, Sandra Spencer & Knudsen hidden, the bullets removed hidden (per O'Connor via Stringer I think said the removed a bullet from the intercostals on the right side) and no recrod of the opening of the neck or upper torso, yet we know this was done... is it really hard to fathem that the body contained other holes from the back? (or out the back from a frontal shot?)

It's impossible to fathom two bullets and one set of bullet holes in the shirt and jacket.

This p.o.s. theory is taking on Zombie status!


Not that the Thorasic level hole was not there or even added later.... but who really knows what happened between 6:40 and 8pm in that Morgue other than the men who did it?

But Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett signed off on seeing the back shot four inches down from JFK's shoulder -- this was before AF1 landed at Andrews.

In the back-wound-mutilation scenario Bennett must have been a mastermind since he accurately described the location of the wound prior to any opportunity to create it.

And what a huge mistake that location turned out to be -- covering up for a conspiracy by creating evidence that must lead to the conclusion there was a conspiracy?

Nahhhh...


My suggestion has always been to only look at the Evidence as it relates to the Conspiracy, not the Crime... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...
Understanding that makes it so much easier to create a POV from which to learn from this inadvertent evidence.

I've asked repeatedly if there is any one item of authentic evidence of the assassination and completely forgot that the jacket and shirt are such items.

Jim - we are not IGNORING the physical evidence, just putting it in the proper perspective and context.

Can you name any other physical evidence which is indicative of what happened during the assassination rather than describing the conspiracy?

Respectfully
DJ
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jim DiEugenio: Not to be Trusted Richard Gilbride 23 2,712 09-08-2024, 09:14 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio On "The Loser's Club" Brian Doyle 0 425 30-12-2023, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Reviews Kamp's Book But Doesn't Mention Prayer Man Brian Doyle 0 552 06-10-2023, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Betrays Deep Politics Forum Over Prayer Man Brian Doyle 4 1,010 05-10-2023, 05:11 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Gives Reference To ROKC Troll Farm And Kamp Brian Doyle 0 561 09-08-2023, 03:02 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Betrays Conspiracy Research Brian Doyle 1 747 07-07-2023, 04:32 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Reviews The House of Kennedy Jim DiEugenio 0 2,378 26-04-2020, 06:50 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  James DiEugenio, I have a single question, would you answer? Scott Kaiser 12 7,846 11-06-2019, 04:32 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Denial of Justice reviewed by Jim DiEugenio Jim DiEugenio 4 4,158 23-05-2019, 10:35 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  John Newman special section: Reviews and Excerpts Jim DiEugenio 4 4,735 08-03-2019, 08:12 PM
Last Post: Alan Ford

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)