Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mark Lane #62
8 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Aug 8, 2012, 7:00:27 PM8/8/12
to
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:36:40 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:
>On 7 Aug., 16:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, although
>> stating that the FBI's five-volume set was "of principal importance", never
>> again mentioned it... along with the probable reason why.
>>
>> "The implications of the FBI report of December 9 are most serious. Clearly
>> Hoover would not presume to summarize the 'medical examination of the
>> President's body' - the autopsy report - in so vital a document unless the
>> autopsy report had been studied carefully. The undated autopsy report prepared
>> by the military physicians and published by the Commission, however, does not
>> permit the conclusions offered by the FBI. Indeed it flatly contradicts them. It
>> certainly could not have served as the basis for the FBI summary. Therefore,
>> either the original autopsy report, after having been examined by the FBI and
>> used as the basis for that agency's summary of its investigation, was withdrawn
>> and then modified, or the FBI acted in an irresponsible manner. The other
>> available evidence - the holes in the jacket and the shirt, the Commission
>> 'leak' published in the press on December 118, 1963, and the testimony of Secret
>> Service Agent Hill - when considered alongside Commander Humes' diagram and his
>> admission that he destroyed original notes relating to the autopsy lends
>> credence to the former alternative."
>>
>> Mark Lane is pointing out the fact that the Warren Commission's strange silence
>> about the FBI report it deemed "of principal importance" probably had a very
>> extraordinary reason - the alteration of evidence.
>
>Don't you know anything? The FBI summary report (CD1) relied on the
>impressions of the two FBI agents (Sibert & O'Neill) that were present
>during the autopsy. Their report (dated 11/26/63) is part of CD7. So
>much for your withdrawn "original" autopsy report.
Ben should have learned long ago not to believe Lane.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On 7 Aug., 16:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, although
>> stating that the FBI's five-volume set was "of principal importance", never
>> again mentioned it... along with the probable reason why.
>>
>> "The implications of the FBI report of December 9 are most serious. Clearly
>> Hoover would not presume to summarize the 'medical examination of the
>> President's body' - the autopsy report - in so vital a document unless the
>> autopsy report had been studied carefully. The undated autopsy report prepared
>> by the military physicians and published by the Commission, however, does not
>> permit the conclusions offered by the FBI. Indeed it flatly contradicts them. It
>> certainly could not have served as the basis for the FBI summary. Therefore,
>> either the original autopsy report, after having been examined by the FBI and
>> used as the basis for that agency's summary of its investigation, was withdrawn
>> and then modified, or the FBI acted in an irresponsible manner. The other
>> available evidence - the holes in the jacket and the shirt, the Commission
>> 'leak' published in the press on December 118, 1963, and the testimony of Secret
>> Service Agent Hill - when considered alongside Commander Humes' diagram and his
>> admission that he destroyed original notes relating to the autopsy lends
>> credence to the former alternative."
>>
>> Mark Lane is pointing out the fact that the Warren Commission's strange silence
>> about the FBI report it deemed "of principal importance" probably had a very
>> extraordinary reason - the alteration of evidence.
>
>Don't you know anything? The FBI summary report (CD1) relied on the
>impressions of the two FBI agents (Sibert & O'Neill) that were present
>during the autopsy. Their report (dated 11/26/63) is part of CD7. So
>much for your withdrawn "original" autopsy report.
Ben should have learned long ago not to believe Lane.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
0 new messages