Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_marsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:m_WdnQDVMMhqqxvVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 5:41 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 7:45 pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 1:05 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist
<lloydsofhanf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> "Some tumbling"? Is that akin to "a little bit pregnant"?
>>>>>>>>> As long as there was ANY tumbling, it could only have been
caused
>>>>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>>> bullet that first struck something else.
>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>> So what? Sew buttons! So I guess that you just admitted that
>>>>>>> Connally was struck by a bullet that first struck something else!
>>>>>> No. As usual you misrepresent. Tumbling is not the only thing that
>>>>>> causes an elongated wound.
>>>>> It is the only thing that could have caused it in this instance,
since
>>>>> a tangential strike is out of the question.
>>>> Wrong. As usual you know nothing about ballistics. A tangential
strike
>>>> is not ruled out and that is not the only other possible cause.
>>>> This pegs you as a WC defender.
>>>
>>>
>>> A tangential strike is ruled out, and a tumbling bullet is the only
>>> possible cause, given the facts of this case.
>>>
>> Those are not the only two possibilities.
>
>
>
> What are the others?
>
Including, but not limited to, yawing and striking a curved surface.
>
>
>>>>>> So I guess that you just admitted that
>>>>>> Kennedy was struck in the head by a bullet that first struck
something
>>>>>> else
>>>>> As usual, you misrepresent.
>>>>>> since his head wound on the record is elongated to exactly the same
>>>>>> length as Connally's back wound.
>>>>> Kennedy's head wound was 6 mm in diameter.
>>>> Diameter? Who said it was a round wound? What's your secret source
for
>>>> that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. You are maintaining that a rectangular bullet was used.
>>>
>> You said diameter. That means round. Elliptical is not the same thing.
>
>
>
> The rest of the world measures space in diameter if it doesn't have
> corners. Sorry that it doesn't meet with your approval.
>
Diameter means round.
>
>
>>>>>>>> The elliptical shape says that a tangential strike elongated
>>>>>>>> the wound.
>>>>>>> From where was the bullet that made this "tangential strike"
fired,
>>>>>>> and if the bullet that caused this wound did not come to rest in
>>>>>>> Connally's thigh, where did it go?
>>>>>> Probably from the next open window on the sixth floor.
>>>>> Impossible. Sorry.
>>>>>> I doubt that it
>>>>>> came to rest in Connally's thigh.
>>>>> Where did it go then? You can't answer, can you?
>>>> I can speculate, but there is no proof.
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, you are arguing that this whole thing didn't happen. A
>>> little like Zeno arguing that Achilles will never outrun the turtle.
>>> That's the SECOND time that I've had occasion to use that analogy in
the
>>> last couple of days or so and it FITS each time.
>>>
>>> It's what JFK conspiracy theory seems to ultimately lead to. A
>>> conclusion that the whole thing never took place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> That wound was more likely caused by a
>>>>>> fragment.
>>>>> Where did the bullet that exited Connally's chest go?
>>>> Maybe into his thigh.
>>>
>>>
>>> I must have sand in my eyes. WHAT did you say?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> And you just got through telling me that I was confusing you with
>>>>>>> Wecht!
>>>>>>> At least Wecht is right about the Ramsey case.
>>>>>> The Ramsey case also shows the value of reexamining the evidence
years
>>>>>> later.
>>>>> The Ramsey case shows the danger posed by scheming mothers who try
to
>>>>> live
>>>>> vicariously through their children and passive fathers, as well as
the
>>>>> value of being a wealthy business owner in a liberal university
town.
>>>> Oh I see. So you turn a simple case of child murder into some screed
>>>> against Liberalism as if the Ramsey family deserved it for being
>>>> Liberal? Shameful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, John Ramsey has attempted to run for office as a Republican.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The Ramsey case is proof positive that before being allowed to raise
>>>>> children, prospective parents should have to go through at least the
>>>>> very
>>>>> same licensing examinations and procedures that attorneys and CPA's
and
>>>>> medical professionals and other professionals go through before they
>>>>> become licensed to practice.
>>>> More gibberish.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then it's being written in the only language that you understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you're looking for an example of a case where the perpetrators
are
>>>>> running the investigation, the Ramsey case fits much better than the
>>>>> JFK
>>>>> case.
>>>> What the Hell does that mean? The recent developed evidence points to
an
>>>> outsider and exonnerates the parents.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no "recently developed evidence" that points to an outsider
>>> and exonerates the parents.
>>>
>> Yes, there is. That is the whole point of the discussion. New DNA
analysis
>> rules out the family.
>
>
>
>
> There is no "new DNA analysis" that "rules out the family".
>
What, they don't have newspapers where you live? Then find it on the
InterNet.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/10/ramsey.dna/?iref=hpmostpop
>
>
>
>>>>> If you're looking for an example of a case where there was indeed an
>>>>> ATTEMPT on the part of local law enforcement to pin the blame on a
>>>>> patsy,
>>>>> the Ramsey case fits much better than the JFK case.
>>>> The local police had no patsy.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, so they tried to im****t one. Duh!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> A better example would be the Olympic
>>>> bombing case where the cops were too lazy to look beyond the first
>>>> person they saw.
>>>>
>>>>> Finally, the Ramsey case is proof positive of how justice can be
>>>>> perverted
>>>>> when feminazi realpolitic is confused with the discipline of law
>>>>> enforcement.
>>>> Can someone translate that into English?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mary Lacy is a feminazi. She does not believe that a woman is capable
of
>>> killing a child, even though, in the real world, that happens quite
>>> frequently.
>>>
>>> With that thought, she has turned a blind eye to the evidence in this
>>> case and has behaved more like a hired gun for the chief suspects,
rather
>>> than as a law enforcement officer.
>>>
>> Regardless of your prejudice, the physical evidence rules out the
mother.
>
>
>
>
> The evidence of the crime scene, taken as a whole, leaves no reasonable
> possibility of a solution that excludes the family.
>
Again, science trumps your prejudices.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> Dr. Shaw acknowledged the tenability of the single bullet
scenario.
>>>>>>> So I'm sure that you're misinterpreting him here.
>>>>>> And the autopsy doctors and WC did not need a SBT until late April
>>>>>> 1964.
>>>>> Whatever it was that they "needed", it became a verifiable fact
after
>>>>> Shaw's testimony in March 1964.
>>>> Wrong again. It wasn't until late April 1964 that Specter dreamed up
the
>>>> SBT. Until then the working conclusion of the WC was three shots,
three
>>>> hits. Humes had proposed his own type of SBT which still had two
bullets
>>>> hitting Connally.> Quite clearly, there are many who "need" for CE
399
>>>> to have NOT struck two
>>>>> men. But it did, and the moving finger, having already writ, moved
on
>>>>> a
>>>>> long time ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not so. Shaw's testimony in March 1964 compels a single bullet
>>> conclusion.
>>>
>> No, he said he did not need a single bullet.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, his testimony compels a single bullet conclusion.
>
>
>> And yes a single bullet going ONLY through Connally could be the cause.
>
>
>
> You're halfway there.
>
>
Humes had his own type of Modified Single Bullet Theory.
|
