On May 13, 12:07 pm, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On May 13, 2:57 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > BUMP>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
> > BUMP>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
> > BUMP>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
> > BUMP>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> Yoour web page starts off with a lie.
>
> I never, everm threatend to visit you, and I challenge you to prove
> otherwise.
why you're here in this thread son:
29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location
of the
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH
photo? Dr.
Mantik has re****ted that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows
2D,
contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the
"wet"
appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the lateral X-ray also
has a "white
patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik re****ts that optical density
measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a "bonehead"... solid
bone all
the way across. Why is there such a distinct and common pattern among
eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?
get busy, show your worth - prove your mettle
Yours in research,
Aeffects
[...]
|
