Reddit megapost on the EOP wound evidence

Post by m***@gmail.com
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebunkThis/comments/8qbqvz/debunkthis_there_were_multiple_shooters_in_the/
The official story is just so pitiful somebody help me from feeling sad
for it all day long.

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

Jason Burke

2018-06-16 04:46:15 UTC

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

This micahjava dude's been kicked so often it's amazing he can (pretend
to) get back up.

micahjava

2018-06-17 20:29:10 UTC

Post by Jason Burke

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

This micahjava dude's been kicked so often it's amazing he can (pretend
to) get back up.

Was there something I missed? Refute the EOP wound.

micahjava

2018-06-16 05:21:39 UTC

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

To what? a magic 6.5 round going straight through the top of the skull or
a magic 6.5 round deflecting sharply upwards upon entering one layer of
skull?

bigdog

2018-06-17 01:40:31 UTC

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

To what? a magic 6.5 round going straight through the top of the skull or
a magic 6.5 round deflecting sharply upwards upon entering one layer of
skull?

Bullets do not maintain a straight line when passing through a substance.
They will curve when the bullet destabilizes. That can be seen through
footage of a bullet passing through ballistic gel.

mainframetech

2018-06-18 00:53:26 UTC

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

To what? a magic 6.5 round going straight through the top of the skull or
a magic 6.5 round deflecting sharply upwards upon entering one layer of
skull?

Bullets do not maintain a straight line when passing through a substance.
They will curve when the bullet destabilizes. That can be seen through
footage of a bullet passing through ballistic gel.

Depends on the energy of the bullet and the consistency of the target.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 21:17:10 UTC

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

To what? a magic 6.5 round going straight through the top of the skull or
a magic 6.5 round deflecting sharply upwards upon entering one layer of
skull?

Bullets do not maintain a straight line when passing through a substance.
They will curve when the bullet destabilizes. That can be seen through
footage of a bullet passing through ballistic gel.

BFD. You try to avoid facing facts by citing irrelevancies.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 21:17:21 UTC

If only you could explain why it is so pitiful and/or offer a viable
alternative.

To what? a magic 6.5 round going straight through the top of the skull or
a magic 6.5 round deflecting sharply upwards upon entering one layer of
skull?

Bullets do not maintain a straight line when passing through a substance.
They will curve when the bullet destabilizes. That can be seen through
footage of a bullet passing through ballistic gel.

Show me the curve in the 48 inches of Ponderosa Pine.

m***@gmail.com

2018-06-15 00:51:23 UTC

This is the 200 upvoted /r/conspiracy link: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8qbocn/there_were_multiple_shooters_in_the_jfk/

m***@gmail.com

2018-06-15 00:51:31 UTC

I also feel bad for the people in those comment sections.

mainframetech

2018-06-15 01:52:26 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.

Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.

Chris

Jason Burke

2018-06-16 05:04:52 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Yeah. Some schmuck 50+ years later knows more than actually, you know,
qualified medical personnel.

micahjava

2018-06-16 05:20:29 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

If there was literally never a small wound in the back of the scalp and
skull, then we would really have a conspiracy. Using the EOP wound
evidence is very important to gaining exposure in the JFK case because the
validity of the three autopsy pathologists' statements, let alone the
photographs and x-rays, don't necessarily have to be questioned. X-ray and
Zapruder Film alteration will get the conspiracy community nowhere. The
real money is on the wound where nobody has to be lying for it to be true.

bigdog

2018-06-17 01:03:22 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

micahjava

2018-06-17 20:30:22 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Where a

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 00:59:03 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Not exactly. It is in his fireplace where he burned it.

Post by micahjava
Where a

claviger

2018-06-20 01:34:01 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Not exactly. It is in his fireplace where he burned it.

The President's blood was on the notes so out of respect
Cmd. Humes burned those notes.

mainframetech

2018-06-21 15:29:23 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Not exactly. It is in his fireplace where he burned it.

The President's blood was on the notes so out of respect
Cmd. Humes burned those notes.

The reason Humes gave for burning the notes was that they might become
collector's prizes and he wanted to avoid that. However, some believe he
destroyed his notes because they went against his orders to make it look
like a shot from above and behind was what killed JFK, and he had to
rewrite the Autopsy Report (AR) over.

Chris

bigdog

2018-06-22 21:47:50 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Not exactly. It is in his fireplace where he burned it.

The President's blood was on the notes so out of respect
Cmd. Humes burned those notes.

Some believe lots of silly things.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-22 22:57:57 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Not exactly. It is in his fireplace where he burned it.

The President's blood was on the notes so out of respect
Cmd. Humes burned those notes.

All phony made up excuses. The other notes that WERE published we
bloodstained to we know that was a lie.

The documents are locked up in the National Archives and they did not have
E-bay back then.

The notes disagreed with the final autopsy which was appoved. The notes
confirmed the first autopsy report which had to be burned because it said
conspiracy. That would lead to WWWIII.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-23 00:06:49 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

The official autopsy report is nowhere?

Not exactly. It is in his fireplace where he burned it.

The President's blood was on the notes so out of respect
Cmd. Humes burned those notes.

False. He didn't burn the other notes which had blood on them.

Loading Image...

mainframetech

2018-06-18 00:53:30 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

How would you know, since you're not part of it.

Chris

bigdog

2018-06-18 14:20:44 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

How would you know, since you're not part of it.

I know because I keep seeing the same lame, unsupported allegations
getting recycled over and over again. No matter how many times they are
refuted, they keep getting resurrected. Very little of it is new and what
is new is even more lame than the old stuff, like Doug Horne's recycling
of Lifton's Invasion of the Body Snatchers theory. JFK has been in the
ground for over 54 years and still you guys haven't produced one piece of
credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was responsible.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-18 21:55:24 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

How would you know, since you're not part of it.

I know because I keep seeing the same lame, unsupported allegations
getting recycled over and over again. No matter how many times they are

I keep seeing the same old lies from the WC defenders year after years.
That's how I set my clock.

Post by bigdog
refuted, they keep getting resurrected. Very little of it is new and what
is new is even more lame than the old stuff, like Doug Horne's recycling
of Lifton's Invasion of the Body Snatchers theory. JFK has been in the
ground for over 54 years and still you guys haven't produced one piece of
credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was responsible.

US guys show you evidence you've never seen before.

mainframetech

2018-06-20 17:40:30 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

How would you know, since you're not part of it.

Amazing! You still blat that phony line, even after I gave you a
list of new info from those years. You'll never get it. You're a WCR
junkie.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 21:17:39 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

The "conspiracy community" has been going nowhere for over 50 years. Why
would you expect that to suddenly change.

Why just 50? You're not trying hard enough.

mainframetech

2018-06-17 01:43:19 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Now here's a photo called the 'stare-of-death' photo. If you ENLARGE
it, and look just under the hair hanging down, you'll see the bullet hole
IN THE FRONT OF THE HEAD:

Loading Image...

When they were trying to alter the photos they missed this one and
'leaked' it to all.

Chris

micahjava

2018-06-17 20:30:30 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

I repeat, you can't find the bullet hole in the BOH, and here's the
photo to prove it. If you see the hole in this photo, let me know,
Otherwise you have to face the fact that there's nothing there, but there
is a clear bullet hole in the photo of the bullet hole in the FRIONT of
the head at the forehead/temple area. Here's the BOH photo again. Find
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Now here's a photo called the 'stare-of-death' photo. If you ENLARGE
it, and look just under the hair hanging down, you'll see the bullet hole
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
When they were trying to alter the photos they missed this one and
'leaked' it to all.
Chris

Not only are the autopsy photographs ambiguous as to what they show in the
lower back of the scalp, but we have evidence that photographs showing a
clearer view of this wound has disappeared.

The documentary and witness evidence is more than enough to show the EOP
wound existed.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 00:57:48 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Not only are the autopsy photographs ambiguous as to what they show in the
lower back of the scalp, but we have evidence that photographs showing a
clearer view of this wound has disappeared.

Which photographs? Show me.

Post by micahjava
The documentary and witness evidence is more than enough to show the EOP
wound existed.

Nope. Humes said it was down near the hairline, then above the EOP, then
below the EOP. Those can't ALL be right at the same time.

claviger

2018-06-18 00:52:05 UTC

Post by mainframetech
I repeat, you can't find the bullet hole in the BOH, and here's the
photo to prove it. If you see the hole in this photo, let me know,

See the right corner of the ruler next to a dark red spot.
That is the entrance wound measured and confirmed by the
coning of skull under that spot.

Post by mainframetech
Otherwise you have to face the fact that there's nothing there, but there
is a clear bullet hole in the photo of the bullet hole in the FRIONT of
the head at the forehead/temple area. Here's the BOH photo again. Find
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Now here's a photo called the 'stare-of-death' photo. If you ENLARGE
it, and look just under the hair hanging down, you'll see the bullet hole
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg

We can see strands of hair in that "spot".

Post by mainframetech
When they were trying to alter the photos they missed this one and
'leaked' it to all.
Chris

So the incredibly brilliant plastic surgeons posing as
military pathologists missed this obvious "head wound"?
Are you really that obtuse?!

bigdog

2018-06-18 14:19:23 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Who's "they"?

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 00:56:25 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Who's "they"?

A SS agent named James Fox leaked some of the autopsy photos. He did not
leak all of them.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 21:10:44 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Who's "they"?

SS agent James Fox.

mainframetech

2018-06-20 17:40:40 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Who's "they"?

I've given you that information previously more than once.

Chris

bigdog

2018-06-21 16:44:33 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Who's "they"?

I've given you that information previously more than once.

So it was them?

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-22 21:49:40 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

Who's "they"?

I've given you that information previously more than once.

So it was them?

I left you s message, but maybe Hillary, er McAdams's server was down.
Autopsy photos were leaked by SS agent James Fox.
He is the THEY.
Do you think THEY told him to leak them?
Do you think the CIA told Daniel Ellsberg to leak the Pentagon Papers?
Is that the Deep State you guys keep talking about? Trying to ruin your
war plans?

claviger

2018-06-16 05:21:07 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

You saw a black spot on the forehead in a Black & White photo.
In the Color version of the same photo that black spot is actually
a blood spot, not a bullet wound. Red shows up dark black in
B&W photos. You screwed up again.

mainframetech

2018-06-17 01:43:08 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.

And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

Chris

bigdog

2018-06-18 14:19:20 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

There is no abrasion ring just as there is no bullet hole. You imagine both
of those things because you have no real evidence. It looks nothing like
the photos in DiMaio's book. Only someone really desperate to see a bullet
hole would convince himself there is any resemblance.

mainframetech

2018-06-20 17:41:10 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

Seems like you forgot that you can't see this particular bullet hole.
So how are you making the comparisons, and what are you using? Certainly
not the real bullet hole I pointed to.

Chris

bigdog

2018-06-21 16:45:16 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

Seems like you forgot that you can't see this particular bullet hole.

I don't see a bullet hole. I see a dark spot which you have convinced
yourself is a bullet hole but no one knowledgeable about wound ballistics
shares your opinion. After some prodding I finally figured out which dark
spot you thought was a bullet hole. It looks nothing like a bullet
hole.

Post by mainframetech
So how are you making the comparisons, and what are you using? Certainly
not the real bullet hole I pointed to.

That's because there is no real bullet hole. It's all in your head. This
is as silly as the conspiracy hobbyists who convinced themselves that the
sunlight reflecting off Kellerman's head was actually a handgun being
fired by Greer at JFK. Those people were just as insistent about their
silly belief as you are of yours. Just as it was with them, no amount of
reason is going to convince you that you are wrong. But you are.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-22 21:49:22 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

Seems like you forgot that you can't see this particular bullet hole.

You see a dark spot. Have you been seeing a lot of dark spots recently?
Maybe you should see a good eye doctor. Could be Retinitis pigmentosa.
That's nothing to joke about. It could be very serious.That might explain
why you are not able to look at the evidence.

Post by mainframetech
So how are you making the comparisons, and what are you using? Certainly
not the real bullet hole I pointed to.

That's because there is no real bullet hole. It's all in your head. This

So you see a black dot and you think it is not a bullet hole.
Then tell us what you think it is. Is it a mole? Skin cancer? Or do you
think JFK was born that way? Explain YOUR theory.

Post by bigdog
is as silly as the conspiracy hobbyists who convinced themselves that the
sunlight reflecting off Kellerman's head was actually a handgun being

Yeah, we laughed them out years ago. Bring up some other kooky theories.

Post by bigdog
fired by Greer at JFK. Those people were just as insistent about their
silly belief as you are of yours. Just as it was with them, no amount of
reason is going to convince you that you are wrong. But you are.

And the WC defenders are just as insistent about their kooky theories.
Each one has a different frame for THEIR private SBT. They all seem to
agree now on an early miss, but they can't agree on a frame number.
Do you like Max's theory?

BT George

2018-06-22 21:56:40 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

Seems like you forgot that you can't see this particular bullet hole.

Post by mainframetech
So how are you making the comparisons, and what are you using? Certainly
not the real bullet hole I pointed to.

Chris was ranting about his same imagined "bullet hole" over a year ago.
...About the last time I regularly popped in here. If he says it 10^7
more times between now until the time he's dead at the ripe old age of
about 1,400 it still won't be true!

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-23 20:15:15 UTC

Post by BT George

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.

Seems like you forgot that you can't see this particular bullet hole.

Post by mainframetech
So how are you making the comparisons, and what are you using? Certainly
not the real bullet hole I pointed to.

Are you blind?

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-19 21:17:01 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

WRONG! You have to be looking at the wrong photo with the bullet hole
showing in red. I don't think they made a color photo of the one and only
photo that showed the bullet hole. If you put a link here, I can tell
right away.
And on the B&W photo you looked at, if you ENLARGE it, you will note
that the thing you call a "black spot" really has a fleshy rim around it
called an 'abrasion ring', which can be seen on fairly fresh wounds.
Chris

He probably thinks JFK was born that way or it was an old war wound.
Just as they try to explain away the dent in the chrome topping.

Spence

2018-06-20 17:45:16 UTC

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

So where oh where did the "forehead" shot come from Chris? Ever been to
Dealey Plaza?

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-22 23:15:10 UTC

Post by Spence

I have to add to the sadness, since the kill shot was in the
forehead/temple area, and NOT in the BOH. Though the article says that
there was a conspiracy, and more than on shooter, it completely uses the
Autopsy Report (AR) as a base for its conclusions. Since the AR is full
of lies so that a shot from above and behind could be 'proven', taking the
statements there as gospel is a terrible mistake.
Once again the bullet hole in the forehead is ignored, or not noticed.
Chris

So where oh where did the "forehead" shot come from Chris? Ever been to
Dealey Plaza?

The HSCA identified location. 9 feet West of the corner of the fence:

Loading Image...

micahjava

2018-06-18 16:46:23 UTC

So, is there something relevant about this EOP stuff I must know, or is
the proof just so apparently blatant that it isn't even discussed often as
a matter of friendly sport against LNers?

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-18 21:43:33 UTC

So, is there something relevant about this EOP stuff I must know, or is
the proof just so apparently blatant that it isn't even discussed often as
a matter of friendly sport against LNers?

Sure. I guess maybe the fact that they lied three times. Humes said the
entrance was down near the hairline where there was brain tissue oozing
out. Then the WC said the entrance was just above the EOP.
Then the HSCA said the entrance was in the cowlick.
ALL lies. There was NO entrance wound on the back of the head.
The entrance wound which some of us can see for ourselves was in the
forehead. That means the bullet came from in front of the limo.
Can you get Oswald to shoot from in front of the limo?
If not then you have to admit conspiracy.

micahjava

2018-06-19 16:58:55 UTC

So, is there something relevant about this EOP stuff I must know, or is
the proof just so apparently blatant that it isn't even discussed often as
a matter of friendly sport against LNers?

"Slightly above the EOP" is within the hairline, within the short hairs
which could be covered by the long hairs.

Anthony Marsh

2018-06-23 00:11:54 UTC

So, is there something relevant about this EOP stuff I must know, or is
the proof just so apparently blatant that it isn't even discussed often as
a matter of friendly sport against LNers?

"Slightly above the EOP" is within the hairline, within the short hairs
which could be covered by the long hairs.

Yes, exactly. So that is one possible location. What he actually saw was
a dab of tissue on TOP of the hair near the hairline.

Loading Image...

Robert Artwohl, a WC defender, examined the original photograph and
confirmed that it is NOT brain tissue. He thinks it is fat tissue
because it has a yellowish hue. The HSCA photographic panel confirmed
that it is on top of the hair, not in the scalp.

mainframetech

2018-06-20 17:40:08 UTC