BOOK EXCERPTS FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S "RECLAIMING HISTORY"
Baron Wrangle
superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
lazu...@webtv.net
THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
..laz
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
> In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
> >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> >..laz
>
> This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"The records given me include an unsigned staff interview of [Admiral
Calvin] Galloway [Commander of the National Naval Medical Center]
three double-spaced pages long only. That he and Finck were not in
the same world, let along the same morgue, raised no recorded
committee [HSCA] hackles.
This interview was so important to that committee it was conducted by
phone rather than in person with Galloway only located less than an
hour away, in Annapolis. Of what the unnamed staffer put on paper,
this alone is what is new, that the committee got from the admiral who
was in change of that entire Navy operation of which the hospital is
only part:
'Galloway said he was present throughout the autopsy,' and 'during the
autopsy Galloway said that no orders were being sent in form outside
the autopsy room either by phone or by person.'"
Harold Weisberg, "Never Again: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK
Assassination" (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), p 482.
Who's the retard?
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who's the retard of the band of WC apologists?
DAV! IDV! ONPEIN!
(Do I really need to tell you the tune?)
Thanks for the inspiration, Bud!
lazu...@webtv.net
billion the back of the head at the autopsy looked like it does in the
photographs, since we have every witness who was there at both Hospitals
describing massive damage not seen in those pictures. Nothing could be
clearer. We don't know how many times JFK was shot-once or twice in the
head from the front( I think a wound high in the temple as described by
David, Crenshaw, Jenkins, Robinson, but could well be an entrance close
to the ear also as seen in stare of death photo? Once or twice in the
back of the head from the rear( where Humes, Boswell, and Finck put it
in Autopsy Report, though there appears to be an entrance below EOP
that Doug Horne said looks much more like a bullet entrance when this
area was enhanced for the ARRB Photographic analysis, using originals
not degraded pictures. Horne thinks this was a fake puncture for the
record, but I'm not so sure...Laz
Baron Wrangle
"There is yet another reason why Oswald's statment that he was on the
first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at
all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and
all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood
that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second
floor to get himself a Coke?" RH 958.
Boy, he must have been thirsty if he couldn't wait until he got to the
first floor to buy his usual Dr. Pepper!
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
I suspect that Horne put the general scenario together quite well. I've not seen
any LNT'ers refutation of how early the body got to Bethesda - and I do believe
that Horne got it right when he theorized that it was Humes who did the
alterations.
Only CT theory can account for the evidence in this case, that's a simple fact.
I think Horne was on to something regarding the differing scenarios that were
being played out in the first few hours and days...
I believe that there was one shot in the temple, one shot to the front of the
throat, one shot in the back of the head (although it might have been tangential
- as at least one doctor believed), and one shot in the back around T3/T4.
Connally was hit by two bullets.
(my stalker is probably gnashing his teeth at these clear statements...)
Bud
> On Jul 3, 4:24 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
> > > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> > > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> > > >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> > > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> > > >..laz
>
> > > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> > > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> > > then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> > > the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
>
> > Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
>
> > > --
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Ben Holmes
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "The records given me include an unsigned staff interview of [Admiral
> Calvin] Galloway [Commander of the National Naval Medical Center]
> three double-spaced pages long only. That he and Finck were not in
> the same world, let along the same morgue, raised no recorded
> committee [HSCA] hackles.
>
> This interview was so important to that committee it was conducted by
> phone rather than in person with Galloway only located less than an
> hour away, in Annapolis. Of what the unnamed staffer put on paper,
> this alone is what is new, that the committee got from the admiral who
> was in change of that entire Navy operation of which the hospital is
> only part:
>
> 'Galloway said he was present throughout the autopsy,' and 'during the
> autopsy Galloway said that no orders were being sent in form outside
> the autopsy room either by phone or by person.'"
>
> Harold Weisberg, "Never Again: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK
> Assassination" (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), p 482.
>
> Who's the retard?
You, if you think thats the last word.
Baron Wrangle
> On Jul 3, 11:35 pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 4:24 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > > > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
> > > > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> > > > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> > > > >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> > > > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> > > > >..laz
>
> > > > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> > > > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> > > > then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> > > > the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
>
> > > Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
>
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Ben Holmes
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > "The records given me include an unsigned staff interview of [Admiral
> > Calvin] Galloway [Commander of the National Naval Medical Center]
> > three double-spaced pages long only. That he and Finck were not in
> > the same world, let along the same morgue, raised no recorded
> > committee [HSCA] hackles.
>
> > This interview was so important to that committee it was conducted by
> > phone rather than in person with Galloway only located less than an
> > hour away, in Annapolis. Of what the unnamed staffer put on paper,
> > this alone is what is new, that the committee got from the admiral who
> > was in change of that entire Navy operation of which the hospital is
> > only part:
>
> > 'Galloway said he was present throughout the autopsy,' and 'during the
> > autopsy Galloway said that no orders were being sent in form outside
> > the autopsy room either by phone or by person.'"
>
> > Harold Weisberg, "Never Again: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK
> > Assassination" (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), p 482.
>
> > Who's the retard?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't. On page 507 of "Post-Mortem" there is a reproduction of an
Authorization for Post-Mortem Examination made out for JFK, signed by
Robert Kennedy and dated 22 November 1963. There are no restrictions
on it.
Quit while you're behind, Bud.
timstter
> On Jul 4, 8:08 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 11:35 pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 4:24 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 3, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > > > > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
> > > > > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> > > > > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> > > > > >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> > > > > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> > > > > >..laz
>
> > > > > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> > > > > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> > > > > then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> > > > > the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
>
> > > > Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Ben Holmes
Paul K. O'Connor, when he was testifying in the docudrama On Trial:
Lee Harvey Oswald, said that Dr Burkley was in the room and that he
interfered constantly on behalf of the Kennedy family.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tim:
Can you provide a statement from anyone who actually witnessed either
Jacqueline or Robert Kennedy issuing directives about the autopsy?
BW
Bud
> On Jul 4, 8:08 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 11:35 pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 4:24 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 3, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > > > > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
> > > > > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> > > > > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> > > > > >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> > > > > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> > > > > >..laz
>
> > > > > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> > > > > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> > > > > then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> > > > > the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
>
> > > > Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Ben Holmes
And you think that is the last word?
> Quit while you're behind,Bud.
You are the one struggling against the truth. The truth is that the
Kennedys exerted influence on the autopsy.
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud:
How? And don't say, "The evidence is overwhelming." That's a lot of
Bugliosi.
BW
Bud
Are you an indian?
> And don't say, "The evidence is overwhelming." That's a lot of
> Bugliosi.
Yah, if by "Bugliosi" you mean fully supportable, it is.
We have the people giving the instructions, the person conveying
those instructions and the people receiving those instructions. If
this isn`t good enough, what chance do the ideas of retards who have
none of these things in the hundreds of instances of conspiracy they
imagine occurred have?
> BW
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is a link to Humes's sworn ARRB testimony:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0018b.htm
He testified, "As far as supervising the autopsy, he [Admiral Burkley]
didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it."
Did Humes commit perjury? If he didn't, who's left to receive the
instructions?
BW
Bud
>
> He testified, "As far as supervising the autopsy, he [Admiral Burkley]
> didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it."
> Did Humes commit perjury? If he didn't, who's left to receive the
> instructions?
You think Burkley would have to be the one supervising the autopsy
for the wishes of the Kennedy family conveyed by him to have influence
on the process?
> BW
Baron Wrangle
Read again what Humes said: "Nobody supervised."
BW
P.S. My . . . name . . . is . . . Simon . . . van . . . Gelder!
Bud
> On Jul 7, 1:58 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:00 pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
Get a dictionary and check the differences between the word
"supervise" and the word "influence".
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, please! Take a look at what Galloway said again. How were the
Kennedys influencing the autopsy--with their brain waves? Were John
and Caroline influencing it? If you replaced "Kennedys" with
"Frickenschmidts" in what you've written, it would make just as much
sense.
You continue to make one unsupportable assertion after another.
You're Bugliosi's Mini-Me. It could be worse, since David is Fat
Bastard.
What is it you can't face?
BW
What is the evidence, and what does it mean?
Bill James
Bud
That might be a CTer`s conclusion. I would think it was the person
said to be liaison between the Kennedy`s and the autopsy.
> Were John
> and Caroline influencing it? If you replaced "Kennedys" with
> "Frickenschmidts" in what you've written, it would make just as much
> sense.
To you, anyway.
> You continue to make one unsupportable assertion after another.
> You're Bugliosi's Mini-Me. It could be worse, since David is Fat
> Bastard.
Is this flaming to you?
> What is it you can't face?
<snicker> You are of course aware of the quotes by Finck, Burkley,
Boswell and Humes where they mention the Kennedy`s family`s influence
on the autopsy. Yet only the parts that support what you want to
believe show up on your radar. What is it you find the Kennedy
family`s influence on the autopsy so hard to face?
Heres an old post by Paul Seaton from the archives where he mentions
some (but not all) of the information regarding the Kennedy family`s
influence on the autopsy.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7aad491e0153e531
timstter
Hi BW,
Well, for a start, it was actually Jacqueline Kennedy that gave the
direction for him to be autopsied at Bethesda at short notice. This
was simply because he had been in the US Navy.
He should have been autopsied in Dallas by someone like Earl Rose, but
his most loyal lieutenants like Kenny O'Donnell put the kybosh on
that.
Have you watched O'Connor's testimony on OT:LHO yet?
Baron Wrangle
Tim:
Actually, Jacqueline merely said she would not leave Dallas without
her husband's body. Secret Service agents and Kennedy aides like
O'Donnell then took it away, shoving Rose out of the way. Don't
forget the Secret Service; they were the ones with the guns. Admiral
Burkley then gave Jacqueline the choice of Bethesda or Walter Reed for
the autopsy. It's not quite Hobson's choice, but it's close.
When OT:LHO was first broadcast in the USA, I only watched it long
enough to verify that Gerry Spence knew next to nothing about the
assassination. Did LWT even consider a knowledgeable lawyer like Bud
Fensterwald or Jim Lesar for the defense? O'Connor didn't see any
Kennedys, did he?
BW
P.S. I may be Zefrem Cochrane. I'm not sure if I've been born yet.
aeffects
> On Jul 3, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
> > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> > >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> > >..laz
>
> > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> > then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> > the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
>
> Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
hey dipshit.... only naive believe that nonsense... get-a-grip on
reality, not your johnson moron!
Bud
> On Jul 3, 2:24 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
> > > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
> > > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) then 1. All 3 Autopsists
> > > >would not be off at least 4 inches on the head wound entrance-AND THIS
> > > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> > > >..laz
>
> > > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that the prosectors were incompetent.
> > > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
> > > then the only explanation they can give for refusing to accept the evidence of
> > > the autopsy is that they prosectors were incompetent.
>
> > Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on the process, retards.
>
> hey dipshit.... only naive believe that nonsense...
Of course retards don`t believe it, it`s supportable. Just imagine
if you kooks had this kind of support for any of the hundreds of acts
of conspiracy you imagine. A direct line from the people giving the
instructions, the person relaying the instructions and the people
receiving them. See, this what you can do when things actually occur.
> get-a-grip on
> reality, not your johnson moron!
I can do both.
Baron Wrangle
>
>
>
> > BW
>
> > What is the evidence, and what does it mean?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Master Bud:
You are a God-dammed liar. Finck, Burkley, Boswell and Humes were all
officers in the U.S. Army or Navy. Who was commander-in-chief of the
U.S. Army and Navy from 2 PM EST, November 22, 1963 to noon EST,
January 20, 1969? Who controlled promotions and assignments during
this time? Can you say, "Lyndon Johnson?" I knew you could.
The notion that the Kennedys restricted the autopsy is contradicted by
the authorization Robert Kennedy signed. It contained no
restrictions. Why would the Kennedys want to restrict the dissection
of JFK's neck? For the sake of appearance? There was already a
tracheotomy incision in his neck, and, in an autopsy, the interior of
the neck is accessed through the thorax.
Jacqueline Kennedy would not have had to stay so long at Bethesda if
the undertakers hadn't taken so much time reconstructing JFK's head,
for the sake of appearance. In the end, she decided on keeping the
casket closed. If she had stated this before they began their work,
she could have left sooner.
Why dissect a wound they were convinced went nowhere? Perhaps because
it is standard procedure in a medico-legal autopsy.
Humes testified before the Warren Commission that he burned the first
draft of the autopsy report. When he was handed the set of autopsy
notes during his testimony, he thought at first that it included notes
he had taken during the autopsy. It did not. If anyone knows what
happened to these notes, they aren't talking. He later changed his
story and said that he had burned the notes.
Burkley's claim that he supervised the autopsy is directly
contradicted by Humes. They couldn't get their stories straight.
Was Robert McNamara ever in the autopsy room?
After the Navy took the autopsy photos and X-rays, the Secret Service
took them and kept them until 1965, when they transferred them to the
National Archives. They have been there ever since. The Warren
Commission had access to them, but chose not to use them as evidence.
The Kennedy family never had legal right to or actual control over
these materials. The Lawson Knott-Burke Marshall agreement is a sham.
What you have said is unimportant and I do not hear your words.
BW
I [punch] have [punch] had [punch] enough [punch] of [kick in the
groin] you!
Captain James T. Kirk in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boys and girls, I don't think Master Bud heard my last question, since
he hasn't responded to it. Let's make sure he does. At noon EDT on
July 10, 2010, let's all say aloud, "What is it you can't face?" Say
it clearly, preferably in a British accent. Do your best, Tim.
BW
Bud
Burkley, family friend of the Kennedy who conveyed their wishes to
the prosectors was an Admiral.
> Who was commander-in-chief of the
> U.S. Army and Navy from 2 PM EST, November 22, 1963 to noon EST,
> January 20, 1969? Who controlled promotions and assignments during
> this time? Can you say, "Lyndon Johnson?" I knew you could.
<snicker> But you don`t have anyone saying he influenced the
autopsy. Not so with the Kennedy family. You ignore what is in
evidence in favor the products of your retarded imagination. If you
actually had the support the idea that the Kennedy family influenced
the autopsy has in the aspects of the conspiracy you imagine, you
could actually go somewhere. But since the things you imagine didn`t
occur, you are stuck spinning you wheels for decades.
> The notion that the Kennedys restricted the autopsy is contradicted by
> the authorization Robert Kennedy signed.
Your retarded ideas are contradicted by the Warren Commission
Report.
And your idea that the autopsy was not influenced by the Kennedy
family is contradicted by the witnesses.
> It contained no
> restrictions. Why would the Kennedys want to restrict the dissection
> of JFK's neck? For the sake of appearance? There was already a
> tracheotomy incision in his neck, and, in an autopsy, the interior of
> the neck is accessed through the thorax.
Perhaps Jackie was unaware of this. In any case, it is a valid line
of questioning to ask why the Kennedys influenced the autopsy. It is a
denial of history to pretend they did not.
> Jacqueline Kennedy would not have had to stay so long at Bethesda if
> the undertakers hadn't taken so much time reconstructing JFK's head,
> for the sake of appearance. In the end, she decided on keeping the
> casket closed. If she had stated this before they began their work,
> she could have left sooner.
>
> Why dissect a wound they were convinced went nowhere? Perhaps because
> it is standard procedure in a medico-legal autopsy.
>
> Humes testified before the Warren Commission that he burned the first
> draft of the autopsy report. When he was handed the set of autopsy
> notes during his testimony, he thought at first that it included notes
> he had taken during the autopsy. It did not. If anyone knows what
> happened to these notes, they aren't talking. He later changed his
> story and said that he had burned the notes.
Maybe to hide the Kennedy family`s influence on the autopsy.
> Burkley's claim that he supervised the autopsy is directly
> contradicted by Humes. They couldn't get their stories straight.
Not necessarily. They might be using different understandings of the
word. Humes was running the autopsy. Burkley was monitoring it for the
Kennedy family while acting as liaison for their wishes. Burkley`s
words had weight, because he outranked the prosectors, and was known
to represent the family. He didn`t run the autopsy, but he could exert
the family`s influence on it.
> Was Robert McNamara ever in the autopsy room?
>
> After the Navy took the autopsy photos and X-rays, the Secret Service
> took them and kept them until 1965, when they transferred them to the
> National Archives. They have been there ever since. The Warren
> Commission had access to them, but chose not to use them as evidence.
> The Kennedy family never had legal right to or actual control over
> these materials.
Showing once more they could exert influence on events that should
be out of their control.
> The Lawson Knott-Burke Marshall agreement is a sham.
>
> What you have said is unimportant and I do not hear your words.
Thats how you missed all the indications of the Kennedy family`s
influence on the autopsy in the first place.
> BW
>
> I [punch] have [punch] had [punch] enough [punch] of [kick in the
> groin] you!
>
> Captain James T. Kirk in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Trekkie, that figures. Much more comfortable in the world of
imagination.
Bud
"Supreme Master" to you, pissant.
>heard my last question, since
> he hasn't responded to it. Let's make sure he does. At noon EDT on
> July 10, 2010, let's all say aloud, "What is it you can't face?"
<snicker> I did answer. You just didn`t like my answer.
Ben Holmes
Baron Wrangle says...
>
>On Jul 8, 8:20=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 9:56=A0pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 7, 5:12=A0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 7, 4:05=A0pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 7, 1:58=A0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 6, 11:00=A0pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 6, 8:16=A0am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jul 5, 9:38=A0pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:07=A0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 11:19=A0am, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 8:08=A0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 11:35=A0pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.c=
>om> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 4:24=A0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:44=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <14723-4C2F7CFE-...@storefull-3251.b=
>ay.webtv.net>,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That's a good point...if it was 3 hours( AND A=
> CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >THAT WAS LOOKNG AT THE BACK AND HEAD WOUNDS) t=
>hen 1. All 3 Autopsists
> wound entrance-AND THIS
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IS THE CLINCHER, IF IT WAS AN INTACT BACK OF T=
>HE HEAD.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >..laz
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explains why the LNT'ers must argue that t=
>he prosectors were incompetent.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's admitted even by those such as Bugliosi=
> that the autopsy wasn't rushed,
>using to accept the evidence of
>etent.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 Dont forget the Kennedy family`s influence on=
> the process, retards.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------------=
>-------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben Holmes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.=
>burningknife.com-Hidequotedtext-
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>erview of [Admiral
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Calvin] Galloway [Commander of the National Naval M=
>edical Center]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > three double-spaced pages long only. =A0That he and=
> Finck were not in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the same world, let along the same morgue, raised n=
>o recorded
>> > > > > > > > > > > > committee [HSCA] hackles.
>>
>t was conducted by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > phone rather than in person with Galloway only loca=
>ted less than an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > hour away, in Annapolis. =A0Of what the unnamed sta=
>ffer put on paper,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > this alone is what is new, that the committee got f=
>rom the admiral who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > was in change of that entire Navy operation of whic=
>h the hospital is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > only part:
>>
>y,' and 'during the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > autopsy Galloway said that no orders were being sen=
>t in form outside
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the autopsy room either by phone or by person.'"
>>
>nspiracy in the JFK
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Assassination" (New York: =A0Carroll & Graf, 1995),=
> p 482.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Who's the retard?
>>
>ed text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>roduction of an
>> > > > > > > > > > Authorization for Post-Mortem Examination made out for =
>JFK, signed by
>> > > > > > > > > > Robert Kennedy and dated 22 November 1963. =A0There are=
> no restrictions
>> > > > > > > > > > on it.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 And you think that is the last word?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Quit while you're behind,Bud.
>>
>th is that the
>> > > > > > > > > Kennedys exerted influence on the autopsy.- Hide quoted t=
>ext -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > >Bud:
>>
>> > > > > > > > How?
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > > =A0And don't say, "The evidence is overwhelming." =A0That's=
> a lot of
>> > > > > > > > Bugliosi.
>>
>> > > > > > > =A0 Yah, if by "Bugliosi" you mean fully supportable, it is.
>>
>> > > > > > > =A0 We have the people giving the instructions, the person co=
>nveying
>> > > > > > > those instructions and the people receiving those instruction=
>s. If
>> > > > > > > this isn`t good enough, what chance do the ideas of retards w=
>ho have
>> > > > > > > none of these things in the hundreds of instances of conspira=
>cy they
>> > > > > > > imagine occurred have?
>>
>> > > > > > > > BW- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > Here is a link to Humes's sworn ARRB testimony:
>>
>y/Hum...
>>
>> > > > > > He testified, "As far as supervising the autopsy, he [Admiral B=
>urkley]
>> > > > > > didn't. =A0Nobody supervised. =A0I'm, unfortunately, responsibl=
>e for it."
>> > > > > > Did Humes commit perjury? =A0If he didn't, who's left to receiv=
>e the
>> > > > > > instructions?
>>
>> > > > > =A0 You think Burkley would have to be the one supervising the au=
>topsy
>> > > > > for the wishes of the Kennedy family conveyed by him to have infl=
>uence
>> > > > > on the process?
>>
>> > > > > > BW- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> > > =A0 =A0Get a dictionary and check the differences between the word
>> > > "supervise" and the word "influence".
>>
>> > > > BW
>>
> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Kennedys influencing the autopsy--with their brain waves?
>>
>> said to be liaison between the Kennedy`s and the autopsy.
>>
>> > and Caroline influencing it? =A0If you replaced "Kennedys" with
>> > "Frickenschmidts" in what you've written, it would make just as much
>> > sense.
>>
>>
>> > You continue to make one unsupportable assertion after another.
>> > Bastard.
>>
>> =A0 Is this flaming to you?
>>
>> > What is it you can't face?
>>
>> Boswell and Humes where they mention the Kennedy`s family`s influence
>> on the autopsy. Yet only the parts that support what you want to
>> believe show up on your radar. What is it you find the Kennedy
>> family`s influence on the autopsy so hard to face?
>>
>> some (but not all) of the information regarding the Kennedy family`s
>> influence on the autopsy.
>>
>153...
>>
>>
>>
>> > BW
>>
>> > What is the evidence, and what does it mean?
>>
>> > Bill James
>
>
>You are a God-dammed liar.
Well and accurately stated. Most trolls are. Bud is an exceptional example of
this.
>Finck, Burkley, Boswell and Humes were all
>officers in the U.S. Army or Navy. Who was commander-in-chief of the
>U.S. Army and Navy from 2 PM EST, November 22, 1963 to noon EST,
>January 20, 1969? Who controlled promotions and assignments during
>this time? Can you say, "Lyndon Johnson?" I knew you could.
>
>The notion that the Kennedys restricted the autopsy is contradicted by
>the authorization Robert Kennedy signed. It contained no
>restrictions. Why would the Kennedys want to restrict the dissection
>of JFK's neck? For the sake of appearance? There was already a
>tracheotomy incision in his neck, and, in an autopsy, the interior of
>the neck is accessed through the thorax.
>
>Jacqueline Kennedy would not have had to stay so long at Bethesda if
>the undertakers hadn't taken so much time reconstructing JFK's head,
>for the sake of appearance. In the end, she decided on keeping the
>casket closed. If she had stated this before they began their work,
>she could have left sooner.
>
>Why dissect a wound they were convinced went nowhere? Perhaps because
>it is standard procedure in a medico-legal autopsy.
This is a question that no LNT'er, and certainly no troll has ever been able to
answer.
Why did the "Kennedy family" allow dissections of the chest cut-down wounds, but
refuse permission to dissect what was KNOWN to be an actual bullet wound in the
neck?
It simply makes no sense. But LNT'ers & trolls don't care...
>Humes testified before the Warren Commission that he burned the first
>draft of the autopsy report. When he was handed the set of autopsy
>notes during his testimony, he thought at first that it included notes
>he had taken during the autopsy. It did not. If anyone knows what
>happened to these notes, they aren't talking. He later changed his
>story and said that he had burned the notes.
Humes was certainly placed in an impossible position, and was forced to lie
repeatedly about many aspects of this case. For anyone interested, the 5 volume
set by Doug Horne lays it out in a way that's supported by the evidence, and
that is quite clearly reasonable to the average person.
>Burkley's claim that he supervised the autopsy is directly
>contradicted by Humes. They couldn't get their stories straight.
Humes clearly lied on this point. He was *NOT* in charge of the autopsy, and it
clearly had nothing to do with the "Kennedy family" - who would have had ZERO
interest in forbidding what was forbidden.
>Was Robert McNamara ever in the autopsy room?
It would have been interesting to see the *real* list of those who were there...
I'm quite sure that we don't know the facts about who was in the autopsy room
that night.
>After the Navy took the autopsy photos and X-rays, the Secret Service
>took them and kept them until 1965, when they transferred them to the
>National Archives. They have been there ever since. The Warren
>Commission had access to them, but chose not to use them as evidence.
>The Kennedy family never had legal right to or actual control over
>these materials. The Lawson Knott-Burke Marshall agreement is a sham.
>
>What you have said is unimportant and I do not hear your words.
>
>BW
>
>I [punch] have [punch] had [punch] enough [punch] of [kick in the
>groin] you!
>
>Captain James T. Kirk in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Bud
> In article <4e054540-dd86-450b-add5-9a2c6f8a9...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
You conspiracy retards live in a fantasy world completely
constructed of lies, you are so fucked in the head that simple truths
appear as lies to you. You called me a liar for saying Oswald`s
bullets were inside Tippit`s body, for instance, when this is
undoubtedly the simple truth.
> >Finck, Burkley, Boswell and Humes were all
> >officers in the U.S. Army or Navy. Who was commander-in-chief of the
> >U.S. Army and Navy from 2 PM EST, November 22, 1963 to noon EST,
> >January 20, 1969? Who controlled promotions and assignments during
> >this time? Can you say, "Lyndon Johnson?" I knew you could.
>
> >The notion that the Kennedys restricted the autopsy is contradicted by
> >the authorization Robert Kennedy signed. It contained no
> >restrictions. Why would the Kennedys want to restrict the dissection
> >of JFK's neck? For the sake of appearance? There was already a
> >tracheotomy incision in his neck, and, in an autopsy, the interior of
> >the neck is accessed through the thorax.
>
> >Jacqueline Kennedy would not have had to stay so long at Bethesda if
> >the undertakers hadn't taken so much time reconstructing JFK's head,
> >for the sake of appearance. In the end, she decided on keeping the
> >casket closed. If she had stated this before they began their work,
> >she could have left sooner.
>
> >Why dissect a wound they were convinced went nowhere? Perhaps because
> >it is standard procedure in a medico-legal autopsy.
>
> This is a question that no LNT'er, and certainly no troll has ever been able to
> answer.
What reason did the people conducting the autopsy give, retards? I
know how you retards think that if they don`t give an answer that
means you get to supply one, but is anyone really impressed with this
retarded approach?
> Why did the "Kennedy family" allow dissections of the chest cut-down wounds, but
> refuse permission to dissect what was KNOWN to be an actual bullet wound in the
> neck?
It`s a little late to ask them. And your diversionary tactic
doesn`t address the topic of this discussion, which is the Kennedy
family`s influence on the autopsy. Are you retarded enough to claim
they exerted no influence on the process?
> It simply makes no sense. But LNT'ers & trolls don't care...
Why are you are you trying to divert attention away from the idea
that the Kennedy family influenced the autopsy? Funny, you don`t seem
to allow this in your "45 questions" series.
> >Humes testified before the Warren Commission that he burned the first
> >draft of the autopsy report. When he was handed the set of autopsy
> >notes during his testimony, he thought at first that it included notes
> >he had taken during the autopsy. It did not. If anyone knows what
> >happened to these notes, they aren't talking. He later changed his
> >story and said that he had burned the notes.
>
> Humes was certainly placed in an impossible position, and was forced to lie
> repeatedly about many aspects of this case. For anyone interested, the 5 volume
> set by Doug Horne lays it out in a way that's supported by the evidence, and
> that is quite clearly reasonable to the average person.
>
> >Burkley's claim that he supervised the autopsy is directly
> >contradicted by Humes. They couldn't get their stories straight.
>
> Humes clearly lied on this point. He was *NOT* in charge of the autopsy, and it
> clearly had nothing to do with the "Kennedy family" - who would have had ZERO
> interest in forbidding what was forbidden.
The idea that the Kennedy family influenced the autopsy has more
support than any kook conjecture I`ve even seen, yet they act like
"see no evil" monkeys whenever it is brought up.
> >Was Robert McNamara ever in the autopsy room?
>
> It would have been interesting to see the *real* list of those who were there...
> I'm quite sure that we don't know the facts about who was in the autopsy room
> that night.
<snicker> Oswald shoots Kennedy, and the kooks think the pertinent
information is who was standing around while Kennedy was autopsied.
Baron Wrangle
> In article <4e054540-dd86-450b-add5-9a2c6f8a9...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben:
Thanks! I neglected to say that Burkley was not a friend of the
Kennedys. He was a Naval Medical Corps officer who was assigned to be
Kennedy's physician when he became president. After the
assassination, he continued to serve as Johnson's physician until the
end of his presidency. Johnson promoted him to vice admiral
BW
Baron Wrangle
> "The proof that the autopsy was not conducted quickly and therefore
> superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
> Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
> Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
> Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
>
> Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
> wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
>
> P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
This isn't an excerpt from RH, but an entry to another group David of
Torture set up:
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/0cb3e452a9b80933
I included it partly because I mistakenly thought it was in RH and
wasted time searching for it. It's noteworthy, besides, because it
shows that there are some arguments that Bugliosi has come up with
that he didn't dare include in RH. So, CE399 is admissible in court
because ballistic tests show it was fired from the Mannlicher-
Carcano. As Bill James would say, that's a hell of a note. If I
somehow got my hands on the Mannlicher-Carcano and fired a bullet from
it, that bullet would be admissible in court.
It's nice having a lapdog who takes your table scraps. "Here David,
fetch! Good boy!" Ever thought of reporting Bugliosi to the ABA?
Try the SPCA instead.
BW
Baron Wrangle
> "The proof that the autopsy was not conducted quickly and therefore
> superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
> Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
> Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
> Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
>
> Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
> wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
>
> P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
"When conspiracy theorist Walt Brown tells readers of his book,
'Treachery in Dallas,' what most theorists say, that Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was a 'piece of junk' that 'lacked accuracy,'
how would a reader know that although it wasn't the best of rifles,
Ronald Simmons, the chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluations Branch
of the Department of the Army, said that after test-firing Oswald's
rifle forty-seven times, he found it was 'quite accurate"; indeed, as
accurate as "the M-14" rifle, the rifle used by the American military
at the time?" RH xxviii
Here is a link to Simmons's testimony cited by Bugliosi:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0225a.htm
He described how he fired the Mannlicher-Carcano 20 times (not 47
times) from a machine rest to determine its round-to-round
dispersion. His comments about the rifle being quite accurate and as
accurate as American rifles refer only to its round-to-round
dispersion. But what happens when a human being picks up the rifle
and aims it at a particular point? This part of Simmons's testimony
is quite relevant:
Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon in?
Mr. Simmons: Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it using the iron sight.
We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one
which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an
elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient
means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.
So, before the rifle was tested to determine if it could have been
used to commit the assassination, the scope was altered. The tests
were worthless. How are Bugliosi's readers to know that?
BW
Baron Wrangle
> "The proof that the autopsy was not conducted quickly and therefore
> superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
> Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
> Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
> Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
>
> Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
> wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
>
> P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
"Though it has become an accepted part of the lore of the
assassination that the strecher bullet was pristine (defined as
something in 'its original condition'), that is, completely undamaged,
remarkably, the only authority for this statement is one single
photograph of the bullet published in the Warren Commission Hearings
and Exhibits. Yes, its is almost impossible to see how damaged the
bullet really is from this single-view phtotgraph that does not show
the base of the bullet. That left the critics free to burn the image
of a pristine bullet into the consciousness of America without fear of
their lie being exposed by accurate photographs." RH 808
Howard Roffman refuted this passage long before Bugliosi wrote it.
Here is a link to Chapter 5 of "Presumed Guilty":
http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp5.html
Here is the relevant part of that chapter:
The absence of gross deformity in bullet 399 contradicts the career of
massive bone-smashing attributed to it. However, as I learned from Dr.
[Halpert] Fillinger and as Harold Weisberg pointed out several years
ago in a copyrighted study of the medical evidence [later published in
"Post-Mortem"], the most crucial aspect of 399's state is its absence
of significant distortion detectable through microscopic examination.
The barrels of modern firearms are "rifled," that is, several
spiral grooves are cut into the barrel from end to end. As the bullet
is propelled through the barrel, these spiral grooves and lands (the
raised portions of the barrel between the grooves) set the bullet
spinning around its axis, giving it rotational as well as forward
movement, thus increasing its stability in flight. The lands and
grooves consequently etch a pattern of very fine striated lines along
the sides of the bullet, which will vary from one weapon to another
just as fingerprints vary from one person to another. Like
fingerprints, the lands and grooves scratched onto the surface of the
bullet can be microscopically identified with a particular weapon to
the exclusion of all others, provided that they remain sufficiently
intact subsequent to impact (R547-48).
The very fine lands and grooves along the copper sides of CE 399
allowed the conclusive determination that the bullet had been fired
from "Oswald's" rifle. FBI agent Frazier provided vital testimony
about the defacement of these microscopic markings on 399:
Mr. Eisenberg: Were the markings of the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. Frazier: Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by
having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. Eisenberg: How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. Frazier: It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of
the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. Eisenberg: How far does it affect your examination for
purposes of identification?
Mr. Frazier: It had no effect at all . . . because it did not
mutilate or distort the microscopic marks beyond the point where you
could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one
bullet as were present on the other. (3H430)
From Frazier's testimony it is apparent that the very slight
"defacement" of 399's lands and grooves could be better termed a
"displacement," for the microscopic marks were distorted only by an
almost insignificant change in the contour of the bullet as opposed to
a disruption in the continuity of the surface.
After closely examining 399 at a magnification of five
diameters, I was convinced of the veracity of Frazier's testimony. I
followed each set of lands and grooves on the bullet and saw that all
were continuous and without disruption, beginning just below the
rounded nose and running smoothly down to the tail end.
Howard Roffman, "Presumed Guilty: Lee Harvey Oswald in the
Assassination of President Kennedy" (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1975), pp. 142-43
BW
"You know I hate, detest, and can't bear a lie, not because I am
straighter than the rest of us, but simply because it appalls me.
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies--which is
exactly what I hate and detest in the world--what I want to forget.
It makes me miserable and sick, like biting something rotten would
do. Temperament, I suppose."
Joseph Conrad, "Heart of Darkness"
Baron Wrangle
> "The proof that the autopsy was not conducted quickly and therefore
> superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
> Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
> Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
> Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
>
> Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
> wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
>
> P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
"More than the eyewitness testimony already discussed, conspiracy
theorists rank Oswald's second-floor lunchroom encounter with Dallas
police officer Marrion L. Baker near the very top of the list of
reasons to believe Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. According to the
critics, Oswald couldn't possibly have gotten from the sixth-floor
sniper's nest to the second-floor lunchroom in the ninety-second time
frame estimated by the Warren Commission. Howard Roffman, who offered
a critical analysis of Oswald's and Baker's movements in his book
'Presumed Guilty,' wrote 'Thus, Oswald had an alibi. Had he been the
sixth floor gunman, he would have arrived at the lunchroom at least
five seconds after Baker did, probably more . . . [Therefore] Oswald
could not have been the assassin.' Once again, however, the critics
have exaggerated and misrepresented the circumstances surrounding this
encounter in their curious zeal to exonerate Oswald of the crime he
soobviously committed." RH 837
Here is a link to Chapter 8 of "Presumed Guilty":
http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html
Here is the critical passage of that chapter, demonstrating the Oswald
could not have taken the route the Commission assumed he did:
One of the crucial aspects of Baker's story is his position at
the time he caught a "fleeting glimpse" of a man in the vestibule.
Baker marked this position during his testimony as having been
immediately adjacent to the stairs at the northwest corner of the
building (3H256; CE 497). "I was just stepping out on to the second
floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway,"
said Baker.
It should be noted that the Report never mentions Baker's
position at the time he saw Oswald in the vestibule (R149-51).
Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floor and notes Baker's
position "when he observed Oswald in lunchroom" (R150). This location,
as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibule door
(see CE 1118). The reader of the Report is left with the impression
that Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule as well from this position.
However, Baker testified explicitly that he first caught a glimpse of
the man in the vestibule from the stairs and, upon running to the
vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom (3H256). The Report's
failure to point out Baker's position is significant.
Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor, his path through the
vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined to the north
wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker's position at
the steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the
steps, Baker could have seen only one area in the vestibule -- the
southeast portion. The only way Oswald could have been in this area on
his way to the lunchroom is if he entered the vestibule through the
southernmost door, as the previously cited testimony indicates he
did.
Oswald could not have entered the vestibule in this manner had
he just descended from the sixth floor. The only way he could have
gotten to the southern door is from the first floor up through either
a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Report concedes,
Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and gone
up to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer
(R182).
Thus, Oswald had an alibi. Had he been the sixth-floor gunman,
he would have arrived at the lunchroom at least 5 seconds after Baker
did, probably more. It is extremely doubtful that he could have
entered the vestibule through the first door without Baker's or
Truly's having seen the door in motion. Oswald's position in the
vestibule when seen by Baker was consistent only with his having come
up from the first floor as he told the police.
Oswald could not have been the assassin.
Howard Roffman, "Presumed Guilty: Lee Harvey Oswald in the
Assassination of President Kennedy" (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1975), p. 221.
Note the part that Bugliosi omits. He does deal with it in his end
notes:
In further support of Oswald’s purported alibi, Roffman invokes
angles, pathways,
and lines of sight to ultimately conclude that when Baker initially
caught a
glimpse of Oswald moving away from him as Oswald walked through the
vestibule
into the lunchroom on the second floor (3 H 250, 255, WCT Marrion L.
Baker),
Baker could only see, from his position looking through the small
window of the
second-floor door, into the “southeast portion” of the vestibule. But,
Roffman
argues, the “only way” Oswald could have been in this area of the
vestibule visible
to Baker is if he entered the vestibule through “the southernmost
door,” a door
“accessible to him only had he come up from the first floor,” not down
from the
sixth floor as the Warren Commission postulated. (Roffman, Presumed
Guilty,
pp.217–221; location of Baker when he saw Oswald: CE 1118, 22 H 85)
But if Roffman
concedes that Baker was able to enter the vestibule leading to the
lunchroom
after having entered the second floor from the northwest corner of the
building
(coming up the stairs from the first floor), why couldn’t Oswald enter
the second
floor from this same northwest corner of the building (coming down the
same stairs
from the sixth floor) seconds before Truly and Baker and proceed to
the lunch-
room through the same vestibule door Baker eventually did? (3 H 256,
WCT Marrion
L. Baker) RH Endnotes 474-75
Take a look at Roffman and answer Vince's question.
BW
If he died long ago,
Why do you fear us so?
W.B. Yeats, "The Black Tower"
Baron Wrangle
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
More on Burkley:
In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that
he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a
conspiracy.
Henry Hurt, "Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the
Assassination of John F. Kennedy" (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1985), p. 49.
With family friends like these . . .
BW
Chuck Schuyler
<Baloney snipped.>
> If he died long ago,
> Why do you fear us so?
>
> W.B. Yeats, "The Black Tower"
You're not feared, kooktard--you're laughed at.
Baron Wrangle
I'd rather be laughed at than make a million dollars from a book
that's packed with lies.
BW
Chuck Schuyler
Mission accomplished, kooktard.
Baron Wrangle
> "The proof that the autopsy was not conducted quickly and therefore
> superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
> Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
> Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
> Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
>
> Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
> wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
>
> P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
"In Washington, Commander Humes returns to his office at Bethesda
Naval Hospital, having gotten hardly any sleep since leaving the
morgue six hours earlier. His early morning was consumed attending
his son's First Communion at the family parish." RH 206
Bugliosi cites no source for his statement that Humes attended his
son's First Communion on November 23, 1963. This is not surprising,
since it's a flat-out lie. Here's the proof:
"Humes took notes of his autopsy findings, but he didn't stay to write
the report. He'd been in the morgue since 7:30 the previous night
(Friday, November 22), and at 5:30 A.M. he was exhausted. He also had
to take his daughter to her confirmation on Saturday morning."
Michael M. Baden, "Unnatural Death: Confessions of a Medical
Examiner", with Judith Adler Hennessee (New York: Ivy Books, 1989),
p. 12.
This is not the only collision between Bugliosi and Baden. After
writing that the autopsy was complete that the autopsy was complete
because it lasted three hours, Bugliosi quotes Baden's statement that
the autopsy should have lasted the better part of a day and could have
lasted eight hours, giving the whole passage a flavor of the surreal.
Baden's biases are obvious, but he has a certain sense of professional
responsibility that Bugliosi lacks.
BW
aeffects
how much of that million went to Dale Myers? (tsk-tsk)
> BW
Baron Wrangle
> "The proof that the autopsy was not conducted quickly and therefore
> superficially is that is it lasted at least three hours." Vincent
> Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
> Kennedy" (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 387.
> Subsequent citations will be of the form RH 387.
>
> Three whole hours? Did they take a bathroom break? Thank God it
> wasn't one of those cheapo, Latin American done in an hour autopsies!
>
> P.S. My real name is Anton Karidian.
To keep my readers from becoming nauseated, I am including messages
that are not excerpts from "Reclaiming History." Here is a thread
started by Edward ("The Visual Display of Quantitative Information")
Tufte:
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0002bA&topic_id=1
There are many relevant messages in it, including this one:
The inability to spot the flaw in an argument does not necessarily
mean that the argument is correct.
As a lawyer, I have seen many lawyers get into arguments with non-
lawyers. Usually, the lawyer out-argues the other person (often a
spouse or significant other). The non-lawyer simply does not think
quickly or logically enough to spot and articulate flaws in the
lawyer's argument. Many such lawyers are foolish enough to believe
they have won the argument, and that they must therefore be right.
In fact, they have almost always lost the argument, and are many times
not at all right. Being unable to spot the flaw right now does not
mean you must accept the argument.
-- Patrick Martin (email), December 24, 2006
BW