anyone with a drop of common sense knows that alan shepard and john glenn were behind the assassination of jfk. they knew that one day the gov't would phony up a supposed moon landing and were concerned that jfk would not buy into it. so they hired lucky luciano, long thought to be gone, to put together a team of assassins who had had some success in selling a story about a supposed holocaust and who in fact were the same group who sold the story that sirhan sirhan killed rfk, about which the truth is finally emerging.
It's clear that Henry Sienzant has either run away, or is using another name now (something he's done over the years)... He never *did* offer to state that he could see a second rifle in that referenced frame from the Alyea film. Such cowardice!
And here's the post he never answered:
********************************************************** Henry Sienzant begins lying: "Looking at pg 413, Bugliosi's source is listed as the WR, Appendix IX (nine); Dr. Clark's summary. It is here: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271a.htm
"Doctor Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea ... "
You're lying, Henry. I knew it was only a matter of time... but you've certainly equaled the record of any other Warren Commission defender... Bugliosi is *NOT* talking about the trachea - he is quite DISTINCTLY talking about the original bullet wound in JFK's throat.
Let's look at it again: "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413, bottom of the first paragraph)"
Now, according to your method of reading Bugliosi - the direction of a missile can be determined by the description of a wound INSIDE the body. So tell us, what does the literature say? If an internal wound is "ragged", a missile traveled from back to front... but if an internal wound is *not* ragged, the missile traveled from front to rear? How about bullets that enter someone's side... how is *that* determined?
So tell us, on what basis did Bugliosi decide the *direction* of the bullet based on the knowledge that an interior wound was "ragged"?
Or, even *more* amusing, you think internal wounds can be described as "entrance" or "exit" wounds...
Now, this *is* the sort of logic that prevails among Warren Commission defenders... but I prefer to simply label them lies, and move on.
I'll be amused to see what sort of answer you give - since it's clear that YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WOUND BUGLIOSI OR I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT.
But if you follow the same path as most Warren Commission defenders, you'll get all huffy about being correctly labeled a liar, and run away mumbling about the inability to have a reasonable debate...
(And, of course, you'd be right... you can't have a real debate with someone who lies...)
Henry Sienzant whines: "For Dr. Perry, he lists one source: ARRB MD 58; Interview of Malcolm Perry by Andy Purdy and T.M. Flanagan on January 11, 1978, pg 9. The second part of the source note (7 HSCA 257) pertains to the reference to the lightbulb ging on for Humes.
I found this on page six: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=322&relPageId=6 "I previously pointed out that they were neither ragged nor clean-cut and I suppose that's a misnomer because actually I didn't inspect it that well. What I meant to infer by that initial description was the fact that I couldn't see a clean punched wound. It was roughly round, the edges were bruised and a little blurred... "
This COMPLETELY fails to support Bugliosi's claim: "The light flashes on for Humes when Dr. Perry tells him that he performed his surgery on an existing wound there, a small, round perforation with ragged edges."
And, I note - you're now changing the wound that you're speaking of ... at least this time, you have the correct wound. But since you *now* are speaking of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat, the question becomes why were you speaking of the tracheal wound above???
Henry Sienzant lies again: "Carrico is credited with calling it ragged in the Medical reports filed the day of the assassination or shortly thereafter;"
I DEFY you to cite or quote any instance of Carrico describing the original bullet wound in JFK's throat as "ragged".
You won't, of course... for you, like Bugliosi, are simply lying.
And, as I've so often offered before - I will certainly deliver a heartfelt apology to you if you can actually *CITE* or quote for what I label as a lie. (I've never been forced to apologize in the past... so I don't expect to here either...)
Henry admits: "... while Perry says it is neither ragged nor round, and says his best response should have been "I didn't inspect the margins carefully... I couldn't see them that well might have been a better answer."
So Perry simply did *NOT* say what Bugliosi claims he did.
Henry Sienzant whines: "So for Carrico, no, Bugliosi didn't mistate the Doctor's assessment,"
You're lying again... You need to PRODUCE this statement by Carrico, not merely pretend that it exists... You cannot conflate the original bullet wound with the trachea, and claim that the description of one is identical to the description of the other.
Henry whimpers: "but for Perry, I would have to say he did somewhat. Bugliosi described it as as a small round wound with ragged edges, and Perry's initial description to Purdy was 'neither ragged nor round'. "
Sorry Henry... Bugliosi didn't "misstate" Perry's position - HE SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.
Just as you're lying about Carrico... he *NEVER* described the original bullet wound in the throat as "ragged"... and you'll never quote or cite for such a claim.
You can begin running away now... **********************************************************
And obviously, he took my advice ... for he did precisely that...
the one name i'm clear of is david atlee phillips. but i didn't know about the two other men...there's too much gov't involved in the assassination, why anyone believes it's the orchestration of 1 lone nut is beyond me.
Sunset*gal asserts: "the one name i'm clear of is david atlee phillips. but i didn't know about the two other men...there's too much gov't involved in the assassination, why anyone believes it's the orchestration of 1 lone nut is beyond me."
It's really simple - One local talkshow host refers to it as the "Elvis Effect" ... there's a certain small percentage of people who still believe he's alive.
In other words, no matter *HOW* stupid the issue, there will be a small percentage of kooks who believe it.
Ironically, the statistical percentage of those who believe Elvis is still alive isn't all that far removed from the statistical percentage that believe the Warren Commission Report.
just because you criticize what is gospel doesn't mean you're crazy ;). ok tell me, why would oswald have the contact info of an fbi agent in his wallet?? and how would oswald know how to contact this person if he never worked for the fbi or cia? and btw, when oswald is arrested in new orleans for disturbing the peace [keep in mind, this is civil rights uproar in the south in 1963 in new orleans] for handing out 'communist' fliers supporting castro, why didn't the local fbi chapter in new orleans investigate?? it made the newspapers in new orleans...so, if oswald is a supposed communist, why was it kept @ a local level and then just dismissed??
Hilarious to watch Ben align himself with sunset gal and equate LNers with folks who believe Elvis is alive - irony of ironies - 2 fruitcakes believing they are sane. Two fruitcakes without one single, solitary piece of verifiable, substantive evidence.
Dale whines: "Hilarious to watch Ben align himself with sunset gal and equate LNers with folks who believe Elvis is alive - irony of ironies - 2 fruitcakes believing they are sane. Two fruitcakes without one single, solitary piece of verifiable, substantive evidence."
The FACT that I mentioned... that the statistical numbers of people who believe in the Warren Commission are roughly identical with the number of people who believe Elvis is still alive - is still unrefuted by you.
That you simply lied about what I said is amusing, nothing more...
Why don't you do something constructive? Like answer the post I reposted above - you know, the one that Henry has been running from for weeks now...
Something constructive......why should I refute your juvenile statement about Elvis and people believing in conspiracy? Not surprising that you put any credence behind the stupid poll numbers - it is irrelevant considering simpletons like you pounding the conspiracy drum for 50 years. People with common sense look at evidence and come to a conclusion. You read books by hacks who distort the record, misquote and omit information (mark Lane) and flat out lie to sell books to boobs like you. How did your plot unfold that day? Still waiting......
why aren't you answering my questions?? explain to the rest of us how oswald got a $1500 [$15k in today's money] loan from the state dept. after denouncing his american citizenship in moscow and how his new family were able to come back to the u.s. with no repurcussions??
what??? many of these 'hacks' have documents supporting their claims...ok, explain this: why would all the specatators who were near the president, run up the hill and go behind the picket fence?? and why were there fbi and cia agents behind the fence?? why weren't they @ the bldg where oswald was?
that's all you have to rebut my arguments?? calling me a fruitcake LOL!!! :) my god, talk about having an easy debate with a crash test dummy ;) someone with a stupid facial expression with nothing going on in his brain ;) i'm still waiting on you to answer my questions, and no the answer isn't me being a fruitcake. come on, that's all you got!?? where's all YOUR facts?? and stay on topic dale, elvis has nothing to do with this discussion. now you're turning into one of the morons from the warren commission...they kept bringing in other things that had nothing to do with the assassination and going completely off topic. ;) if you have the real facts, i wanna hear them!
Sunset, you are absolutely bereft of evidence, but loaded with questions and theories that lead nowhere. Give us one hard piece of forensic evidence for what you believe - and try to calm down. Ben brought up Elvis, not me. You have read too many slanted books by people who weren't even alive in 1963 and you discount hard evidence and testimony by experts in their field who for 50 years have maintained the same conclusion - poor patsy Lee, all by himself. By the way, only a fruitcake looks at the evidence in this case and doesn't believe in Oswald's guilt.
Dale whines: "Sunset, you are absolutely bereft of evidence, but loaded with questions and theories that lead nowhere. Give us one hard piece of forensic evidence for what you believe - and try to calm down."
The 6.5mm virtually round object is a "hard piece of forensic evidence" - but you run from that just as fast as you run from *ANY* evidence.
Dale whimpers: "Ben brought up Elvis, not me. You have read too many slanted books by people who weren't even alive in 1963 and you discount hard evidence and testimony by experts in their field who for 50 years have maintained the same conclusion - poor patsy Lee, all by himself. By the way, only a fruitcake looks at the evidence in this case and doesn't believe in Oswald's guilt."
Dale lies: "Something constructive......why should I refute your juvenile statement about Elvis and people believing in conspiracy?"
Because otherwise, morons like you will lie about it. It seems that not a month goes by that I don't have to remind Warren Commission believers that they are in the OVERWHELMING MINORITY of Americans.
So it's instructive to point out that statistically speaking, about the same number of people believe Elvis is still alive as who believe that Oswald alone shot Kennedy.
It's not a matter of whether you *should* refute such a statement - it's simply a fact that you cannot.
Dale whines: "Not surprising that you put any credence behind the stupid poll numbers - it is irrelevant considering simpletons like you pounding the conspiracy drum for 50 years."
Again, a whopper often trotted out that has no evidence supporting it. The American educational system as well as the traditional mass media are firmly in the Warren Commission camp. People don't believe in conspiracy because they read a Groden book, or whatever...
Dale whines some more: "People with common sense look at evidence and come to a conclusion."
Yep... a provable conspiracy. You see, the evidence needs no explanation... Dr. Perry pointed out that the throat wound was an entry wound. That's really all you need. Then again, you also have James Chaney who disproves the silly theory that a single bullet wounded two men. You also have such things as evidence disappearing while in government hands... and lies being told by the Warren Commission & HSCA.
Dale won't "explain" any of these things, because as he says, they don't need explaining.
So people with common sense *DO* realize that there was a conspiracy.
It's only dishonest cowards who refuse to give credible explanations who still sit right next to people who think Elvis is still alive.
Dale whimpers: "You read books by hacks who distort the record, misquote and omit information
You mean like the Warren Commission, HSCA, Posner, Bugliosi... those sorts of people?
Dale lies: "(mark Lane)"
How ironic... I've been quoting Mark Lane for over 240 days... and no-one shows up to point out the distortions, misquotes, and omissions...
I'm predicting right here and now that Dale will refuse to support his claim.
Dale cries: "and flat out lie to sell books to boobs like you. How did your plot unfold that day? Still waiting......"
If you cannot provide a detailed scenario with the evidence, why do you demand it from others? Do you think it's fair for a coward to demand what he himself refuses to provide?
of course jack ruby isn't gonna admit to a conspiracy cuz he knows the cia can go after his family, DUH!! tell me dale, why does the cia have an assassinations dept.?? if they don't kill anyone, why dedicate a whole dept. to 'remove' people??
i've provided plenty of evidence and common sense, now answer my questions. and i've read books by people who weren't alive in 1963?? are you kidding me?? so who the hell is jim garrison?? who's l. fletcher prouty?? they weren't there at the time??
try to rebut my statements: why were there cia agents behind the picket fence BEFORE the spectators and police reached that point??
how did oswald kill tippit and make it to the movie theatre in the time allotted by the warren commission??
why would oswald go to a movie theatre and just sit there after shooting the president and a police officer??
how did an anonymous caller know oswald would die in the dallas police garage??
why was jack ruby @ dealey plaza on the day of the assassination??
why didn't the secret service immediately react when the president was being shot?? they're right behind on the 2nd limo, could it be they were ORDERED to stand down??
why didn't anyone arrest oswald after he casually leaves the bldg.?? i mean, if the shooter is right there and he smells of gunpowder, wouldn't the police arrest him?? and btw, a police officer did see him and dismissed him. ;)
what evidence do YOU have that oswald did it and there was no conspiracy?? and don't say, 'cuz bill oreilly says so'...lemme hear your rebuttal...and i wanna hear actual facts, not calling me a fruitcake ;). if that's all you got, you don't have much of an argument other than 'i read bill oreilly's book and i believe what he says.' :)
Jim Garrison? He was as much a lying fruitcake as the authors of your library of conspiracy books. His own aides admitted he made things up and flat out lied. Don't forget, don't ever forget: the jury deliberated less than ONE HOUR and returned a decision which obliterated you and Ben and your conspiracy cohorts and what you believe in this case. Less than one hour. Don't forget the jury in London doing the same in spite of Gerry Spence representing poor patsy Lee. Still no plausible scenario supported by evidence from Ben or sunset gal or any CTer - they don't dare for fear of knowing - KNOWING- they CANNOT support what they believe with evidence. Ben, in this case it IS the messenger, meaning you - you have a cognitive disability - you are illogical and without any powers of reason.
his aides who turned on him were probably intimidated by the gov't. and btw, many jurors felt there was a conspiracy but unable to link clay shaw to it. and richard helms [director of cia] admitted under OATH that clay shaw worked for the cia :).
and the only fruitcake here is you...you still think i'm ben?? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i don't know ben, but i know he's gonna have a good laugh about that one!! and i've provided PLENTY of evidence as per the warren report, but again, why aren't you proving me wrong?? answer my questions...i'm still waiting tick tock tick tock....face it, you CAN'T answer my questions!! cuz if this was the work of 1 person, there's no way oswald can control the cia agents and anyone warning the dallas police of his pending death!!