From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do    
   > precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,    
   > and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done    
   > so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then    
   > demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior    
   > assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to    
   > murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had    
   > their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single    
   > witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**    
   > to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence    
   > from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at    
   > the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion    
   > within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated    
   > that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is    
   > seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that    
   > reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied    
   > about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's    
   > *no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then    
   > demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren    
   > Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then    
   > covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the    
   > original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid    
   > chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the    
   > assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a    
   > white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two    
   > posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the    
   > medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an    
   > original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the    
   > alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and    
   > the scientific evidence for a frontal shot.    
   >    
   > Vincent Bugliosi wrote what has been hailed as the ultimate defense of    
   > the Warren Commission's theory that a lone assassin, Lee Harvey    
   > Oswald, murdered JFK by himself. Let's see if Bugliosi actually dealt    
   > with the real evidence of conspiracy or not...    
   >    
   > From Reclaiming History:    
   > *********************************************************    
   > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific    
   > books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among    
   > the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current    
   > conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer    
   > wrote me on January, 23, 2001;    
   >    
   > 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What    
   > would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and    
   > cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of    
   > Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none    
   > of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -    
   > convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'    
   >    
   > Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming    
   > History, page 974.    
   > *********************************************************    
   >    
   > Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite    
   > clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...    
   > Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.    
   >    
   > For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission    
   > defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.    
   >    
   > David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the    
   > question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had    
   > much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who    
   > inhabit forums.    
   >    
   > Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by    
   > reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away    
   > from:    
   >    
   > *************************************************************    
   > For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,    
   > therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"    
   > let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted    
   > what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:    
   > (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that    
   > transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited    
   > his throat at the level of his tie;    
   >    
   > (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the    
   > sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams    
   > display, causing his death; and,    
   >    
   > (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,    
   > using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian    
   > Mannlicher-Carcano.    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the    
   > bullet would have had to impact bony structures.    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the    
   > position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have    
   > fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World    
   > War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the    
   > explosive damage.    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a    
   > shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of    
   > the right temple.    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more    
   > than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and    
   > photographs.    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of    
   > the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.    
   > Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National    
   > Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.    
   >    
   > Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs    
   > claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)