The 45 Questions That Frighten LNT'ers - One by One (#17)
Ben Holmes
the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two
semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the
troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most
of the 'answers'.
But first, an important note:
**********************************************************************
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's
only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to
change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults
and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Justme1952
Martyb...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
muc...@hotmail.com
muc...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Tims...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply
deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or
simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill
files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
**********************************************************************
17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even
John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the
cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or
were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet
can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control.
Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on?
aeffects
> On Apr 30, 9:46 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
>
> > Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
> > dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
> > today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
> > examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
> > A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
> > Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
> > A: Right.
> > Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
> > A: I don't recall.
> > Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
> > A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
> > doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
>
> > Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
> > prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
> > clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even
> > John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
>
> > LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the
> > cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or
> > were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet
> > can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control.
>
> > Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on?
>
> him. However, this is all ultimately just 'spooky music', because we
> know the path the bullet took. From McA's site, the following is a
> quote from the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee
> on Assassinations:
prosectors not allowed to do their job, on the president of the United
States corpse = spooky music? You spook easy, BOO!
> (430) "The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
> and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
> bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
> their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
> the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
> may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
> reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
> missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
> determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
> false tracks and misinformation."
>
> Confusion that existed the evening of the autopsy dissapeared the
> following day with a telephone between Humes and Dallas when Humes
> learned that Parkland doctors had EXTENDED THE EXIT WOUND in the neck
> to make his tracheotomy.
>
> Mystery solved.
>
> So did Finck 'lie" at the Shaw trial? You can call it what you want,
> Yellow Pants...the simple FACT of the matter is that the bullet that
> struck JFK in the back exited his neck in the front, and proceeded to
> strike JBC.
>
> Like many of your questions, this is dead on arrival. It's an
> interesting side-issue concerning the competency of the autopsy, but
> it is a non-point.
>
> Next question?
David Von Pein
VIA DR. PIERRE FINCK'S HSCA TESTIMONY:
Dr. FINCK. There were restrictions coming from the [Kennedy] family
and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be
limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to
the head and modest extension but there were restrictions.
Dr. PETTY. The autopsy was limited then at least to the head as far as
you begin with.
Dr. FINCK. For example, from what I remember we did not remove the
organs of the neck because of the restrictions.
Dr. PETTY. Was an examination of the organs in the thoracic area
permitted?
Dr. FINCK. Yes, because there was an extension after those preliminary
restrictions were mentioned. The lungs were removed.
[Later....]
Dr. PETTY. Now is it your knowledge then or concept that someone must
have been in communication with the family so that these restrictions
could be altered as it became necessary?
Dr. FINCK. It is difficult for me to answer that question because we
did what we were told and it is hard for me to say -- well, the
sequence is difficult for me to establish. .... Maybe I can help you
here. Maybe Admiral Galloway who was in charge of the center, as I
remember -- he was the one as far as I can remember communicating
those restrictions to us.
Dr. PETTY. I see. And the restrictions were modified however.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. As you went on.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm
================
I guess some conspiracy theorists think that if a complete
"dissection" of the neck area of JFK had been performed, the end
result of the autopsy would have been completely different than what
it was.
That type of CT argument is, of course, nonsense. Even without a full
tracking/dissection of the neck region of the President, the following
things were still quite obvious to all three autopsists:
1.) JFK was shot in the upper back by one (approx.) 6.5-mm bullet.
2.) X-rays revealed that no bullets or bullet fragments of any kind
remained in JFK's neck and upper-back regions (or anywhere else in his
body either, not counting the head).
3.) No significant-enough damage was done to any part of President
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions to explain why a bullet,
presumably travelling at full velocity (and why we would assume
anything else here), would suddenly stop all forward motion after
striking only the soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back. (Although,
yes, Dr. Humes did initially speculate that a bullet had, indeed,
possibly stopped after travelling just a few inches into the soft
tissues of JFK's upper back. But that's all Humes COULD do at that
point in time, i.e., speculate about just such an unlikely occurrence,
given the fact that the doctors couldn't find a corresponding exit
wound for the bullet, and given the fact there wasn't a bullet to be
found in the body.)
4.) Even if a full tracking/dissection of the neck area had been done
at the autopsy, Humes (et al) still would probably not have known for
certain that the trach wound in JFK's throat masked a bullet hole
until the following morning after Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland doctor
Malcolm Perry.*
* = It was completely idiotic, IMO, for Humes & Company to not have
picked up a phone and called Parkland while JFK was still on the
autopsy table. I've maintained that this delay in calling Perry was
probably the biggest mistake of all that was made by the autopsists.
Just....dumb. But, Humes decided to wait until the next day to call
Parkland, a time when no further examination of JFK's body could, of
course, be done. So, that's what we have to live with. A stupid,
stupid error, IMO....but that's life.
Now, can somebody tell me how a "dissection" of JFK's neck organs
would have substantially changed any of the above factors, findings,
and conclusions regarding the bullet that so obviously entered John F.
Kennedy's upper back, struck no bones at all, and made its exit where
the trach wound was located in the lower part of the throat?
aeffects
> On Apr 30, 2:07 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > prosectors not allowed to do their job, on the president of the United
> > States corpse = spooky music? You spook easy, BOO!
>
keep coming back.... ya know, persistence is your 2nd best friend --
GOGGLE is number 1, of course....
We CT's be light-years ahead of you lone Nut morons... I'm actually
beginning to pity you imbeciles.....
Gil Jesus
> Now, can somebody tell me how a "dissection" of JFK's neck organs
> would have substantially changed any of the above factors, findings,
> and conclusions regarding the bullet that so obviously entered John F.
> Kennedy's upper back, struck no bones at all, and made its exit where
> the trach wound was located in the lower part of the throat?
Can you tell us how this bullet path was created without hitting the
spine ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5JUDN6q*7*Sv4xQp5Fd3Ig=
aeffects
> On Apr 30, 3:44�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, can somebody tell me how a "dissection" of JFK's neck organs
> > would have substantially changed any of the above factors, findings,
> > and conclusions regarding the bullet that so obviously entered John F.
> > Kennedy's upper back, struck no bones at all, and made its exit where
> > the trach wound was located in the lower part of the throat?
>
> Can you tell us how this bullet path was created without hitting the
> spine ?
Is Arlen Spector in the house? LMAO!
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5J...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 30, 8:23 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 9:46 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
>>
>> > Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
>> > dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
>> > today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
>> > examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
>> > A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
>> > Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
>> > A: Right.
>room?
>> > A: I don't recall.
>
>> > A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and th=
>at
>> > doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
>>
>
>> > prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which =
>were
>> > clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wound=
>s? Even
>> > John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
>>
>s the
>> > cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trach=
>ea, or
>> > were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet=
>... yet
>> > can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control.
>>
> on?
>>
>> I think the lawyers cross examining Finck did a pretty good job on
>> him. However, this is all ultimately just 'spooky music', because we
>> know the path the bullet took. From McA's site, the following is a
>> quote from the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee
>> on Assassinations:
This doesn't even approach the level of simple denial - this answer doesn't even
address the question.
>prosectors not allowed to do their job, on the president of the United
>States corpse =3D spooky music? You spook easy, BOO!
>
>
>> (430) "The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
>> and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
>> bullet pathway in President Kennedy=92s neck probably resulted from
>> their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
>> the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
>> may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
>> reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
>> missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
>> determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
>> false tracks and misinformation."
>>
>> Confusion that existed the evening of the autopsy dissapeared the
>> following day with a telephone between Humes and Dallas when Humes
>> learned that Parkland doctors had EXTENDED THE EXIT WOUND in the neck
>> to make his tracheotomy.
>>
>> Mystery solved.
The "mystery" hasn't even been addressed. This is known as the "strawman"
tactic - simply change the topic to something that you believe has an answer.
But the real questions I asked were not even addressed... Once again: Why was
dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors?
Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not*
bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
When a troll can't even gather enough courage to actually address the questions
that are asked, rather than the non-asked questions he presumes - it merely
illustrates yet again that the evidence doesn't favor them.
>> So did Finck 'lie" at the Shaw trial?
Yes... although this is an entirely different subject than the one I brought
up... so before we address his lie, why not answer the two questions that WERE
the foundation of this thread?
>> You can call it what you want,
>> Yellow Pants...the simple FACT of the matter is that the bullet that
>> struck JFK in the back exited his neck in the front, and proceeded to
>> strike JBC.
And sadly, the *only* medical evidence based on a primary examination of the
throat wound contradicts the idea of transit - transit, of course, being an idea
that was *NOT* developed on the basis of evidence gathered at the autopsy, but a
theory developed a day later.
But again, you're moving off the topic... why not answer the original two
questions?
>> Like many of your questions, this is dead on arrival.
More honestly, these two questions *CAN'T* be answered in a non-conspiratorial
way to any reasonable person.
>> It's an
>> interesting side-issue concerning the competency of the autopsy, but
>> it is a non-point.
It's a "non-point" that you ducked and ran away from - despite the *appearance*
of answering.
>> Next question?
You haven't addressed these two questions at all yet...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>>
>> > Now, can somebody tell me how a "dissection" of JFK's neck organs
>> > would have substantially changed any of the above factors, findings,
>> > and conclusions regarding the bullet that so obviously entered John F.
>> > Kennedy's upper back, struck no bones at all, and made its exit where
>> > the trach wound was located in the lower part of the throat?
>>
>> Can you tell us how this bullet path was created without hitting the
>> spine ?
>
>Is Arlen Spector in the house? LMAO!
>
>
>> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5J...
Even though DVP is a cowardly liar who continually refuses to support his own
words - I'll be happy to answer his question (just for the fun of it)
He asks "Now, can somebody tell me how a "dissection" of JFK's neck organs would
have substantially changed any of the above factors, findings, and conclusions
regarding the bullet that so obviously entered John F. Kennedy's upper back,
struck no bones at all, and made its exit where the trach wound was located in
the lower part of the throat?"
First, let's analyze this question so that we can see what the *real* question
actually is. In order to explain DVP's question, allow me to rephrase it: "Now,
can anybody tell me how gathering physical evidence by means of an autopsy would
have substantially changed any speculations that were made WITHOUT the
evidence?"
For of course, autopsies actually have a purpose... DVP is proposing that we can
bypass autopsies - and simply head straight for the conclusions without
gathering any evidence.
DVP is concerned that the "factors, findings, and conclusions", which he knows
full well were *NOT* based on any primary medical evidence, but on speculation
formed a day AFTER the autopsy, might be actually impacted if we had the ACTUAL
EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US.
The answer, of course, is that ***OF COURSE** ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WILL
"SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE" ANY PRECONCEIVED THEORY THAT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE EVIDENCE!
DVP has presumed that the speculations made after the autopsy were correct, and
that any actual disection could only have supported and bolstered the
speculation - as indeed it *could* have if the speculation were correct.
Unfortunately for him, we know now that the only medical evidence BASED ON A
PRIMARY EXAMINATION OF JFK demonstrated transit to be unlikely at best.
So DVP's question is silly on the face of it - once you understand his
preconceptions, you understand how silly it is to ask if evidence might change a
theory made without the foundation of evidence.
His question, of course, is in answer to my two questions - which unfortunately,
he must have proven too cowardly to address... here they are again: Why was
dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why
were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not*
bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
Now, considering that I fully and completely answered his question - does anyone
really think that DVP will answer the two original questions that he's already
proven to have ducked?
Anyone taking bets?
David Von Pein
Ben The Kook evidently wants to think that all of the things I listed
earlier are dead-wrong. Well, here they are again:
1.) JFK was shot in the upper back by one (approx.) 6.5-mm bullet.
2.) X-rays revealed that no bullets or bullet fragments of any kind
remained in JFK's neck and upper-back regions (or anywhere else in his
body either, not counting the head).
3.) No significant-enough damage was done to any part of President
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions to explain why a bullet,
presumably travelling at full velocity (and why we would assume
anything else here), would suddenly stop all forward motion after
striking only the soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back. (Although,
yes, Dr. Humes did initially speculate that a bullet had, indeed,
possibly stopped after travelling just a few inches into the soft
tissues of JFK's upper back. But that's all Humes COULD do at that
point in time, i.e., speculate about just such an unlikely occurrence,
given the fact that the doctors couldn't find a corresponding exit
wound for the bullet, and given the fact there wasn't a bullet to be
found in the body.)
4.) Even if a full tracking/dissection of the neck area had been done
at the autopsy, Humes (et al) still would probably not have known for
certain that the trach wound in JFK's throat masked a bullet hole
until the following morning after Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland doctor
Malcolm Perry.
Now, in hindsight, yes, it would have been nice if the Kennedy family
hadn't interfered (to some degree) with the autopsy. And it would have
also been nice (to keep the CTers' yaps shut about it) if the autopsy
had been performed by Dr. Rose under Dallas County jurisdiction.
But these things didn't happen, and we must deal with them as best we
can. The Kennedy family, by all accounts, did interfere with the
autopsy and pose certain restrictions and limitations on what was to
be done by the autopsists. And Kennedy's body was removed from Dallas
(technically against the law, yes).
But it was Kenny O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien who ultimately were
responsible for bulldozing that casket out of the Parkland
corridors....and if some conspiracy kooks want to pretend that both
O'Donnell and O'Brien, two trusted friends and aides of JFK, were part
of some crazy cover-up plot after the assassination -- well, let 'em
think that. It certainly won't be the first time a CT-Kook has
theorized about something stupid and insane.
>>> "His [DVP's] question, of course, is in answer to my two questions -- which, unfortunately, he must have proven too cowardly to address. Here they are again: [1.] Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors?" <<<
Already fully answered by Dr. Pierre A. Finck himself -- the Kennedy
family requested certain limitations on the autopsy. Period. Done
deal. Mark VII. Go home. Give it a rest.
Why does this need to be stated to Kook Ben over and over again? Why?
But, one more time for the CTer sitting in the top row of Kook
Stadium:
DR. FINCK -- "There were restrictions coming from the [Kennedy] family
and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be
limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to
the head and modest extension but there were restrictions. .... From
what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck because of
the restrictions."
>>> "[2.] Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
And one MORE time for Kook Benji:
"From what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck
because of the restrictions." -- Pierre A. Finck; 1978
>>> "Now, considering that I fully and completely answered his question -- does anyone really think that DVP will answer the two original questions that he's already proven to have ducked?" <<<
Already been answered. Many times, in fact. And answered by many
different people over the years too. Benji just simply doesn't like
the "Kennedy Family Interfered" answer.
I guess Ben wants to pretend that the "Kennedy Family Interfered"
answer is wrong....or: that RFK and Jackie were prime conspirators in
the covert plot to cover-up the true nature of JFK's wounds.
Ben has no choice but to believe in one of those two options I just
offered up above (if Ben wants to believe that the lack of neck
dissection on JFK's body leads to something shady and
"conspiratorial", that is).
I wonder which of those two incorrect CT-favoring options Ben The Kook
will choose. Any chance he'll tell us? Or would he rather remain a
pussy hiding behind his "killfilter" for at least one more day? (Even
though his "filter" is just a pussy excuse to hide when he feels like
hiding, of course; since, as we just saw, the Mega-Kook responded to
me (an LNer who has been "killed" by Pussy Ben) with a long rant a
little bit ago.)
================================================
A RELATED V.B. BOOK PASSAGE FOLLOWS:
"The reality is that technically speaking, the autopsy was not a
“complete” one, since the neck organs were not removed (7 HSCA 191–
192).
"While reviewing the autopsy report the morning of November 24,
1963, Dr. Finck told Dr. Humes that he didn’t think the box next to
“complete autopsy” should be checked because their examination was
confined to the head and chest, largely owing to the wishes of the
Kennedy family.
"Humes disagreed, saying that the box for “complete autopsy”
should be checked because the autopsy had accomplished its objective—
to determine the number and direction of the bullets and the cause of
death. Finck subsequently conceded and signed the report. (AFIP Record
205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Dr. Finck to Brigadier Gen. J. M.
Blumberg, Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy,
February 1, 1965, p.4; also ARRB MD 28; ARRB MD 30, Transcript of Dr.
Finck’s testimony before the HSCA medical panel, March 11, 1978, p.
110)" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 221 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
================================================
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b3dfc916...
David, David, DAVID! You just got your assed kicked son... wake up,
smelll the roses, boyo..... LURKERS are NOT DUMB. Its time to get
Vinnie here, kiddo.
Simply, you can't handle this, MAYBE Bugliosi can......
aeffects
> On Apr 30, 4:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <3095ca10-e170-4019-aa57-0e8e3239a...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ben:
>
> I answered your question, Yellow Pants.
>
> My answer is that it is an interesting side issue concerning the
> competency of the autopsy, but it is a non-issue concerning whether or
> not there was a conspiracy.
>
> The autopsy concludes (correctly) that one bullet entered the POTUS
> from behind in the upper back and exited the front of his neck.
sitdown Chuckie, you have to raise your hand.....
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 30, 4:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b3dfc916...
>>
>> Ben The Kook evidently wants to think that all of the things I listed
>> earlier are dead-wrong. Well, here they are again:
Nope... all I stated is that the evidence doesn't support it. But once again
you've run screaming from the two simple questions... you haven't even *tried*
to address them. Here they are again:
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
And why do you keep avoiding these questions?
>> 1.) JFK was shot in the upper back by one (approx.) 6.5-mm bullet.
Yep... no problem so far. Even though it doesn't answer the two questions I
asked.
>> 2.) X-rays revealed that no bullets or bullet fragments of any kind
>> remained in JFK's neck and upper-back regions (or anywhere else in his
>> body either, not counting the head).
Untrue. Nor is it responsive to the two questions I asked.
>> 3.) No significant-enough damage was done to any part of President
>> Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions to explain why a bullet,
>> presumably travelling at full velocity (and why we would assume
>> anything else here), would suddenly stop all forward motion after
>> striking only the soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back.
Arguing that the damage proves transit, and wasn't *ENOUGH* to demonstrate that
the bullet didn't transit is a silly argument!
And not responsive to the two questions I asked.
>> (Although,
>> yes, Dr. Humes did initially speculate that a bullet had, indeed,
>> possibly stopped after travelling just a few inches into the soft
>> tissues of JFK's upper back.
It wasn't "speculation," it's what the physical examination indicated.
>> But that's all Humes COULD do at that
>> point in time,
Untrue. He *could* have dissected the path of the bullet - yet they were
stopped from doing so. Why aren't you interested in explaining why?
Why do you keep running as far as you can from the two simple questions I asked?
Could it be that you're a gutless coward? Or that you KNOW that there's no
non-conspiratorial answer possible?
>> i.e., speculate about just such an unlikely occurrence,
>> given the fact that the doctors couldn't find a corresponding exit
>> wound for the bullet, and given the fact there wasn't a bullet to be
>> found in the body.)
>>
>> 4.) Even if a full tracking/dissection of the neck area had been done
>> at the autopsy, Humes (et al) still would probably not have known for
>> certain that the trach wound in JFK's throat masked a bullet hole
>> until the following morning after Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland doctor
>> Malcolm Perry.
Meaningless and false speculation. Had the trajectory been dissected, if a
bullet *HAD* transited JFK - this would have been proven beyond all doubt by the
dissection.
>> Now, in hindsight, yes, it would have been nice if the Kennedy family
>> hadn't interfered (to some degree) with the autopsy. And it would have
>> also been nice (to keep the CTers' yaps shut about it) if the autopsy
>> had been performed by Dr. Rose under Dallas County jurisdiction.
Explain why the Kennedy family allowed dissection of the chest incisions, but
refused to allow dissection of the actual trajectory of the bullet.
>> But these things didn't happen,
Of *COURSE* they didn't happen. The two questions are asking YOU to explain
that fact, not merely acknowledge it.
>> and we must deal with them as best we
>> can.
No, you must EXPLAIN that fact. If you can't - then conspiracy is waiting in
the wings as the natural explanation.
By your cowardice in failing to address this issue, it becomes clear that there
*was* a conspiracy.
>> The Kennedy family, by all accounts, did interfere with the
>> autopsy and pose certain restrictions and limitations on what was to
>> be done by the autopsists.
Present the evidence.
I suspect that the best you can do is *SECOND HAND HEARSAY*.
Completely consistent with conspiracy - as the military certainly needed an
excuse not to conduct a full and complete autopsy - and "family wishes" are
certainly a convenient one.
>> And Kennedy's body was removed from Dallas
>> (technically against the law, yes).
Why do you keep drifting into other topics? I only posed *TWO* simple
questions, that you've STILL not addressed.
>> But it was Kenny O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien who ultimately were
>> responsible for bulldozing that casket out of the Parkland
>> corridors....and if some conspiracy kooks want to pretend that both
>> O'Donnell and O'Brien, two trusted friends and aides of JFK, were part
>> of some crazy cover-up plot after the assassination -- well, let 'em
>> think that. It certainly won't be the first time a CT-Kook has
>> theorized about something stupid and insane.
Wrong, dishonest, and not a part of this topic.
>> >>> "His [DVP's] question, of course, is in answer to my two questions -- =
>which, unfortunately, he must have proven too cowardly to address. Here they=
> are again: [1.] Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, for=
>bidden to the prosectors?" <<<
>>
>> Already fully answered by Dr. Pierre A. Finck himself -- the Kennedy
>> family requested certain limitations on the autopsy. Period. Done
>> deal. Mark VII. Go home. Give it a rest.
No ... an answer that *YOU* certainly know can't explain the facts. The chest
incisions WERE dissected - the supposed "family interference" didn't affect that
at all. Until you can explain the known facts, your attempted "family
interference" claim is simply silly on the face of it.
It COMPLETELY fails to explain the facts... the family didn't mind if the
prosectors gutted JFK totally, and removed his brain - but held the line at
actually dissecting the real bullet wound???
You only sound stupid when you try to make such claims.
Now, care to actually answer the question?
"WHY" is the central thesis of the question... you've tried to answer "WHO" -
and your answer makes no sense.
>> Why does this need to be stated to Kook Ben over and over again? Why?
Because you've not answered it. (Notice that *I* can answer "why" questions)
>> But, one more time for the CTer sitting in the top row of Kook
>> Stadium:
>>
>> DR. FINCK -- "There were restrictions coming from the [Kennedy] family
>> and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be
>> limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to
>> the head and modest extension but there were restrictions. .... From
>> what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck because of
>> the restrictions."
Yep... gut JFK like a fish... pull out all his organs, his liver, his spleen,
his brain, his heart... etc... but don't touch his trachea.
And stay away from the actual bullet wound.
The stupidity of trolls is at a level that makes me want to take a two by four
to their heads just to 'get their attention'.
For certainly DVP is *STILL* running from answering the two simple questions.
>> >>> "[2.] Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were=
> clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?"=
> <<<
>>
>> And one MORE time for Kook Benji:
>>
>> "From what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck
>> because of the restrictions." -- Pierre A. Finck; 1978
This doesn't answer the question. Indeed, Finck is not even responding to the
same question that I just asked.
Anytime DVP... feel free to actually give us two answers that make sense.
(I knew you'd try the "Kennedy's did it" defense - but it doesn't even make
sense.)
>> >>> "Now, considering that I fully and completely answered his question --=
> does anyone really think that DVP will answer the two original questions th=
>at he's already proven to have ducked?" <<<
>>
>> Already been answered.
The questions, of course, deal with "Why?" You have *NOT* even tried to give a
coherent answer to those questions.
>> Many times, in fact. And answered by many
>> different people over the years too. Benji just simply doesn't like
>> the "Kennedy Family Interfered" answer.
It doesn't answer "why". Nor does it even make sense. Tell the world just what
interest the Kennedy family had in JFK's trachea?
They clearly didn't care about his brain, his heart, his lungs, his spleen, his
liver, his intestines, his .... well everyone got the point by now.
>> I guess Ben wants to pretend that the "Kennedy Family Interfered"
>> answer is wrong....
It's based on second hand hearsay, and *NO-ONE* can track it back to any member
of the Kennedy family. Indeed, this is why they always say "Kennedy Family"
rather than a specific individual.
And it doesn't make sense. For the trolls who constantly harp about "common
sense", it seems to have left them.
>> or: that RFK and Jackie were prime conspirators in
>> the covert plot to cover-up the true nature of JFK's wounds.
This *IS* what you must believe. It's EXACTLY what you're trying to assert.
>> Ben has no choice but to believe in one of those two options I just
>> offered up above (if Ben wants to believe that the lack of neck
>> dissection on JFK's body leads to something shady and
>> "conspiratorial", that is).
You can't provide a non-conspiratorial explanation for the known facts. You
*MUST* believe that RFK & Jackie were "prime conspirators in the covert plot to
cover-up the true nature of JFK's wounds"
I label *that* as kooky.
>> I wonder which of those two incorrect CT-favoring options
How you can label the first, which is merely common sense, or label the second,
which is a LONE NUTTER POSITION as being a "CT-favoring" option merely
demonstrates a real lack of logic on your part.
>> Ben The Kook
>> will choose.
Seems needless to point out that ad hominem generally demonstrates that you
can't handle the actual facts.
>> Any chance he'll tell us?
Just did. You see, unlike dishonest cowards such as yourself, CT'ers generally
have no problems whatsoever answering troll questions.
>> Or would he rather remain a
>> pussy hiding behind his "killfilter" for at least one more day? (Even
>> though his "filter" is just a pussy excuse to hide when he feels like
>> hiding, of course; since, as we just saw, the Mega-Kook responded to
>> me (an LNer who has been "killed" by Pussy Ben) with a long rant a
>> little bit ago.)
Not only a dishonest coward, but Internet challenged as well! It seems that no
matter how many times it's pointed out that I *DON'T* have other people
killfiled, and when *THEY* respond to your nonsense, and quote it, that I can
read it... it doesn't seem to sink in.
>> A RELATED V.B. BOOK PASSAGE FOLLOWS:
Sadly, not responsive to the two questions either.
>> "The reality is that technically speaking, the autopsy was not a
>> =93complete=94 one, since the neck organs were not removed (7 HSCA 191=96
>> 192).
>>
>> "While reviewing the autopsy report the morning of November 24,
>> 1963, Dr. Finck told Dr. Humes that he didn=92t think the box next to
>> =93complete autopsy=94 should be checked because their examination was
>> confined to the head and chest, largely owing to the wishes of the
>> Kennedy family.
>>
>> "Humes disagreed, saying that the box for =93complete autopsy=94
>> should be checked because the autopsy had accomplished its objective=97
>> to determine the number and direction of the bullets and the cause of
>> death. Finck subsequently conceded and signed the report. (AFIP Record
>> 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Dr. Finck to Brigadier Gen. J. M.
>> Blumberg, Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy,
>> February 1, 1965, p.4; also ARRB MD 28; ARRB MD 30, Transcript of Dr.
>> Finck=92s testimony before the HSCA medical panel, March 11, 1978, p.
>> 110)" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 221 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
>> History" (c.2007)
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>>
>> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>
>David, David, DAVID! You just got your assed kicked son... wake up,
>smelll the roses, boyo..... LURKERS are NOT DUMB. Its time to get
>Vinnie here, kiddo.
>
>Simply, you can't handle this, MAYBE Bugliosi can......
Nah... His 'tome' proved that. Bugliosi is a dishonest coward like the rest of
the troll faction. Perfectly willing to argue whatever position pays him.
Let's not forget that Bugliosi argued *IN COURT* that there were conspiracies in
both the RFK and JFK case.
Ben Holmes
And *still* doesn't.
>> > >prosectors not allowed to do their job, on the president of the United
>> > >States corpse =3D spooky music? You spook easy, BOO!
>>
>> > >> (430) "The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
>> > >> and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
>> > >> bullet pathway in President Kennedy=92s neck probably resulted from
>> > >> their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
>> > >> the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
>> > >> may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
>> > >> reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
>> > >> missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
>> > >> determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
>> > >> false tracks and misinformation."
>>
>> > >> Confusion that existed the evening of the autopsy dissapeared the
>> > >> following day with a telephone between Humes and Dallas when Humes
>> > >> learned that Parkland doctors had EXTENDED THE EXIT WOUND in the neck
>> > >> to make his tracheotomy.
>>
>> > >> Mystery solved.
>>
>> > The "mystery" hasn't even been addressed. This is known as the "strawman"
>>> tactic - simply change the topic to something that you believe has an answer.
>>
>>> But the real questions I asked were not even addressed... Once again: Why was
>>> dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors?
Dead silence...
>>> Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not*
>> > bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
Dead silence...
>>> When a troll can't even gather enough courage to actually address the
>>questions
>> > that are asked, rather than the non-asked questions he presumes - it merely
>> > illustrates yet again that the evidence doesn't favor them.
>>
>> > >> So did Finck 'lie" at the Shaw trial?
>>
>>> Yes... although this is an entirely different subject than the one I brought
>>> up... so before we address his lie, why not answer the two questions that WERE
>> > the foundation of this thread?
>>
>> > >> You can call it what you want,
>> > >> Yellow Pants...the simple FACT of the matter is that the bullet that
>> > >> struck JFK in the back exited his neck in the front, and proceeded to
>> > >> strike JBC.
>>
>>> And sadly, the *only* medical evidence based on a primary examination of the
>>> throat wound contradicts the idea of transit - transit, of course, being an
>>idea
>>> that was *NOT* developed on the basis of evidence gathered at the autopsy, but
>>a
>> > theory developed a day later.
>>
>> > But again, you're moving off the topic... why not answer the original two
>> > questions?
Dead silence...
>> > >> Like many of your questions, this is dead on arrival.
>>
>>> More honestly, these two questions *CAN'T* be answered in a non-conspiratorial
>> > way to any reasonable person.
>>
>> > >> It's an
>> > >> interesting side-issue concerning the competency of the autopsy, but
>> > >> it is a non-point.
>>
>>> It's a "non-point" that you ducked and ran away from - despite the
>>*appearance*
>> > of answering.
>>
>> > >> Next question?
>> >
>> > You haven't addressed these two questions at all yet...
>>
>>
>> Ben:
>>
>> I answered your question,
No, as I pointed out above, you didn't. Nor can you quote any such answer...
But liars never go anywhere...
>> Yellow Pants.
>>
>> My answer is that it is an interesting side issue
Yep... a "side issue"... not a response to *MY* two questions.
You can't have it both ways, troll...
>> concerning the
>> competency of the autopsy, but it is a non-issue concerning whether or
>> not there was a conspiracy.
>>
>> The autopsy concludes (correctly) that one bullet entered the POTUS
>> from behind in the upper back and exited the front of his neck.
Based on speculation - not medical examination. Anytime you want to try
answering the real questions I asked, feel free.
justm...@gmail.com
> On May 1, 9:22 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4df73155-a0e0-49c3-b59d-2be4cba2f...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Pout and stomp your feet all you want Yellow Pants, but just because
> you raise a question doesn't mean it's a good question. Your questions
> are easily swatted down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No matter what answer Holmes is given, if the answer in the least way
shows him to be wrong he will not accept it and call people liars and
cowards. What is the point in even responding to him and his damn 45
questions over and over again? You can go back a year ago and look at
the same answers being given to him and Holmes still responding with
coward, liar, ducking and running.
How much more boring can he get? He'll never be satisfied, but the
rest of us are watching the LN's (as Chuck said) swatting down the
king of bullshit.
aeffects
> On May 1, 9:22 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <4df73155-a0e0-49c3-b59d-2be4cba2f...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Pout and stomp your feet all you want Yellow Pants, but just because
> you raise a question doesn't mean it's a good question. Your questions
> are easily swatted down.
focus son, FOCUS address the question - not side issues....
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
It's not me you have to convince...
>> Pout and stomp your feet all you want Yellow Pants, but just because
>> you raise a question doesn't mean it's a good question. Your questions
>> are easily swatted down.
When evasions, lies, and ad hominem are the best you can do - lurkers will draw
their own conclusions...
aeffects
> In article <bd5bd980-f6ae-4c89-9711-305774dca...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
frankly, you disemboweled Von Pein..... whatever rating remains re
this copy & paste arteeeeest is now in the shitter....
aeffects
wrote:
mah-tay, Mah-tay, MAH-TAY, we're not impressed.... ROTFLMFAO!
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9aa19a8-691f-49a8...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
TOO bad you CAN't do it with evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "Completely consistent with conspiracy - as the military certainly needed an excuse not to conduct a full and complete autopsy - and "family wishes" are certainly a convenient one." <<<
But it's the only explanation we've got -- so I'll live with it.
For some reason, Ben must think that something awfully "conspiracy-
flavored" was buried inside JFK's neck/trachea on 11/22. Wonder what
Ben thinks it might have been? Six or seven bullets perhaps? Maybe a
flechette dart from TUM?
Or -- maybe Ben's just a freakin' kook with an overactive imagination.
That last option seems like the best one.
>>> "The stupidity of trolls is at a level that makes me want to take a two by four to their heads just to 'get their attention'." <<<
Why? We're all "killfiled" anyway, aren't we? Why bother with the 2x4?
Kook.
>>> "You can't provide a non-conspiratorial explanation for the known facts. You *MUST* believe that RFK & Jackie were "prime conspirators in the covert plot to cover-up the true nature of JFK's wounds"." <<<
Why "MUST" I think that, Mr. Kook?
I think the Kennedys just wanted to speed up the autopsy as much as
possible and get the dead President back to the White House with them.
That's fairly obvious. In hindsight, that's not a very wise thing to
ask the autopsists to do....but they did it anyway.
Anything else, Mr. Mega-Kook?
Find those 6 bullets buried in JFK's trachea yet, btw?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Feel free to QUOTE the "answer" that has been given that answers "WHY". No-one
yet has dared to do so.
It is, of course, the point of the two questions... why. Not who, what, where,
or when... but why.
Why do trolls lie about this?
>> What is the point in even responding to him and his damn 45
>> questions over and over again?
Because they've never been answered to begin with. You can't quote a SINGLE
response that answers the two "why" questions I asked here.
>> You can go back a year ago and look at
>> the same answers being given to him and Holmes still responding with
>> coward, liar, ducking and running.
Do you presume that cowards and liars have changed in the intervening year(s)?
No-one back then answered 'why' either...
>> How much more boring can he get? He'll never be satisfied,
It's not me you must satisfy.
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <de91a884-9701-4d6f-974e-ea7572b72...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes is a bigger idiot than Healy is...why does anyone bother
with his stupidity and his bait and switch games he continually plays?
I think everyone should just ignore him and his slaves and move on the
bigger and better discussions. Maybe he'll get bored and go away and
take the other idiots with him.
aeffects
> Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend
> the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two
> semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the
> troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most
> of the 'answers'.
>
> But first, an important note:
>
> **********************************************************************
> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's
> only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to
> change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults
> and attacks.
>
> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> Baldoni
> Bigdog
> Bill
> Brokedad
> Bud
> Burlyguard
> Cdddraftsman
> Chuck Schuyler
> Chu...@amcmn.com
> Curious
> David Von Pein
> Ed Dolan *
> Justme1952
> Martybaugh...@gmail.com
> Miss Rita
> much...@hotmail.com
> much...@gmail.com
> Sam Brown
> Spiffy_one
> Timst...@Gmail.com
> Todd W. Vaughan
> YoHarvey
>
> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply
> deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or
> simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill
> files.
>
> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
> **********************************************************************
>
> 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
>
> Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
> dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
> today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
> examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
> A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
> Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
> A: Right.
> A: I don't recall.
> Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
> doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
>
> Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
> clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even
> John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
>
> cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or
> were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet
> can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control.
>
below a reasonable responses from the Education Forum...
*******************
Being frequently "alone" as well as often referred to as also being
"nuts", here goes:
1. Dr. Humes was not "forbidden" from dissecting the back/to/ neck
wound!
2. The back wound was probed with the little finger. The ending
point could be felt, and the
bullet passageway terminated at a shallow depth into the back.
3. After opening of the chest and removal of the lungs, a metal probe
was inserted into the back wound
and the point/tip of this probe could be observed inside the chest
cavity, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact position at
which there was also bruising of this membrane.
4. The bruised area of the parietal pluera in which the metal probe
could be observed pushing, correlated exactly with a bruised area at
the apex of the right lung. However, the bullet penetration did not
violate the membrane.
5. The determined conclusion then, as well as at termination of the
autopsy, was that the bullet hand gone into the back only a short
distance, lodged, and thereafter fell out of the back due to the
resuscative efforts made on JFK at Parkland Hospital.
6. Since the bullet track, (as found) terminated in the tissue of the
back, there was nothing to actually "dissect".
7. However! This did not prevent the autopsy surgeons from taking a
sample of the skin at the point of entrance, as well as a sample of
tissue from the "bottom" area of the wound which they observed.
These tissues were prepared into microscopic slide samples which were
not reviewed until that period when the preserved brain was also
examined.
In conclusion:
Since there was no determined bullet "pathway" from the back entry
wound to the anterior throat wound, there was no necessity to dissect
the neck as, at the time of the autopsy (and it's termination), there
was no determined correlation between the posterior back entry wound
and the anterior throat (tracheostomy) incision.
After the autopsy was completed; JFK's body removed, and everyone
pretty well sent home, Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry at
Parkland Hospital and found that JFK had a small anterior throat
wound.
Thereafter, a "meeting of the minds" between the three autopsy
surgeons took place, and it was then determined (in absentism of the
body) that the bullet which struck in the back had exited the anterior
neck.
Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; as well as Dr. Finke, were under the
impression that they had completely botched the autopsy (which is of
course not that far from being correct), and thereafter the original
autopsy notes (which would have stated that CE399 merely lodged in
JFK's back) were destroyed and the autopsy results changed to make the
anterior throat wound a correlative factor associated with the exit of
CE399.
This is why when the autopsy was ended, those such as the FBI, etc;
left with and documented the results which state that CE399 merely
lodged into JFK's back.
And, since JEH and Company are most assuredly smart enough to
recognize not only how CE399 came to exist, as well as what could
cause a 2,100/2,200 fps Carcano bullet to penetrate only an inch or
two into the human body, we still have JEH & Company telling the
truths in regards to CE399 and the first shot.
Might I also add that JEH & Company were also smart enough to make the
small 0.9 grain, cone-shaped; flat-based (4.5mm width) fragment of
lead which exited JFK's throat (which came from the base of CE399) and
was once a portion of CE840, as well as the tree limbs, disappear.
Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!
TP
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
That's what Finck testified to. And it's simply historical fact that the most
obvious procedure of all - the dissection of the track of the bullet through the
body was *NEVER* performed.
This falls under the rubric of "simple denial"
>2. The back wound was probed with the little finger. The ending
>point could be felt, and the bullet passageway terminated at a shallow
>depth into the back.
This is a restatement of known history, and not an explanation of why the wound
was not dissected, nor the trachea pulled out and examined.
>3. After opening of the chest and removal of the lungs, a metal probe
>was inserted into the back wound
>and the point/tip of this probe could be observed inside the chest
>cavity, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact position at
>which there was also bruising of this membrane.
Ditto... same response as above.
It's interesting to note that the very photograph that would corroborate or
contradict this is missing.
And I consider that a photograph supporting the SBT would have a very slim
chance of being "lost"...
>4. The bruised area of the parietal pluera in which the metal probe
>could be observed pushing, correlated exactly with a bruised area at
>the apex of the right lung. However, the bullet penetration did not
>violate the membrane.
We are *still* discussing historical fact, and not explaining why the dissection
never occurred, and why they were ordered *NOT* to dissect the track of the
bullet.
>5. The determined conclusion then, as well as at termination of the
>autopsy, was that the bullet hand gone into the back only a short
>distance, lodged, and thereafter fell out of the back due to the
>resuscative efforts made on JFK at Parkland Hospital.
I should just copy/paste my commentary... none of this explains why they were
forbidden from dissecting the track of the wound, as Finck testified under oath.
(and quite reluctantly.)
>6. Since the bullet track, (as found) terminated in the tissue of the
>back, there was nothing to actually "dissect".
Again, "simple denial." The answers appear to be coming from a believer in
conspiracy, yet he/she ignores the testimony of one of the three prosectors, and
ignores the actual facts - the *FACT* that there was no dissection where it
seems most obvious.
The 'chest incisions' didn't even enter the chest, so they *MUST* have been of a
length even *shorter* than the back wound, yet *THEY* were dissected... so this
argument that there was "nothing to actually dissect" is a rather dishonest
handling of the known facts.
>7. However! This did not prevent the autopsy surgeons from taking a
>sample of the skin at the point of entrance, as well as a sample of
>tissue from the "bottom" area of the wound which they observed.
>
>These tissues were prepared into microscopic slide samples which were
>not reviewed until that period when the preserved brain was also
>examined.
These tissue samples also disappeared.
>In conclusion:
>
>Since there was no determined bullet "pathway" from the back entry
>wound to the anterior throat wound,
And because they had been ordered *NOT* to dissect this track...
>there was no necessity to dissect the neck as,
This is about as dishonest a statement as I've ever seen. Obviously presuming
that the neck wound was not recognized as a legitimate antemortem wound, this
STILL doesn't make sense. The chest incisions, which COULD NOT FAIL to have
been recognized for what they were - were indeed dissected.
But we also know that it's virtually impossible for the prosectors *NOT* to have
known that the tracheotomy 'concealed' a bullet wound.
So only the explanation given under oath by Finck can explain it - THEY WERE
FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO.
Trying to claim that there was no legitimate autopsy reason for dissecting EACH
AND EVERY WOUND on JFK is a lie so vast as to border on requiring the listener
to be quite deficit in IQ.
>at the time of the autopsy (and it's termination), there
>was no determined correlation between the posterior back entry wound
>and the anterior throat (tracheostomy) incision.
Again, merely reciting historical fact doesn't excuse or explain the orders
given that stopped the prosectors from dissecting the track of the bullet.
>After the autopsy was completed; JFK's body removed, and everyone
>pretty well sent home, Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry at
>Parkland Hospital and found that JFK had a small anterior throat
>wound.
A fact that he almost certainly knew of during the autopsy. We only hear of
this story after Oswald was killed - and indeed, it was the killing of Oswald,
and not this phone call, that certainly prompted the revising of the autopsy
report.
>Thereafter, a "meeting of the minds" between the three autopsy
>surgeons took place, and it was then determined (in absentism of the
>body) that the bullet which struck in the back had exited the anterior
>neck.
Yep... speculation absent medical evidence. But once again, this fails to
explain why they were ordered not to dissect, and conveniently, the photograph
(hmmm, and X-ray, come to think of it) that would have proven or contradicted
transit disappeared.
>Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; as well as Dr. Finke, were under the
>impression that they had completely botched the autopsy (which is of
>course not that far from being correct),
There's *ZERO* evidence for this attack on the prosectors.
Since the entire chain of command at Bethesda was also in attendance, and one of
doctors assisting was the one who ROUTINELY did autopsies day in and day out,
and the Surgeon General of the Navy was also there - you are, indeed, simply
indicting military medicine as incompetent.
Sadly, although the prosectors all had long and quite ordinary careers, no-one
who has proclaimed their incompetence has been able to document this
"incompetence" - despite the fact that documentation on those in the military
VASTLY exceeds what a civilian doctor will have in terms of documentation of his
ability or lack thereof.
>and thereafter the original
>autopsy notes (which would have stated that CE399 merely lodged in
>JFK's back) were destroyed and the autopsy results changed to make the
>anterior throat wound a correlative factor associated with the exit of
>CE399.
This is indeed the "official" story... and if you can swallow the incompetence
of the military, then it seems almost normal and believable.
But the *truth* is that the change of the autopsy report almost certainly was
caused by Oswald's death. And even *then*, it wasn't good enough - for it was
certainly changed again the following year. (See the executive sessions for a
reference that couldn't have come from the autopsy report we now have - it's
also covered in the 45 Questions, #35)
>This is why when the autopsy was ended, those such as the FBI, etc;
>left with and documented the results which state that CE399 merely
>lodged into JFK's back.
This was the most accurate results we have - although even here, we have
unanswered questions due to the way the autopsy was controlled.
>And, since JEH and Company are most assuredly smart enough to
>recognize not only how CE399 came to exist, as well as what could
>cause a 2,100/2,200 fps Carcano bullet to penetrate only an inch or
>two into the human body, we still have JEH & Company telling the
>truths in regards to CE399 and the first shot.
>
>Might I also add that JEH & Company were also smart enough to make the
>small 0.9 grain, cone-shaped; flat-based (4.5mm width) fragment of
>lead which exited JFK's throat (which came from the base of CE399) and
>was once a portion of CE840, as well as the tree limbs, disappear.
After you replace what the FBI took out of CE399 - where's a fragment big enough
to trace a non-existent path from the brain to the neck, and make a wound that
medical opinion held to be an entry wound?
>Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!
>TP
Yet there's still enough evidence to put much of this together. To deny that
the military tightly controlled what could, and could not be done during the
autopsy is to ignore the evidence, and swallow the mythology of the WCR.
I've often come across those who appear to support conspiracy, yet strangely
treat the eyewitnesses, and the photographic evidence, (indeed, *all* evidence),
ENTIRELY the same way that LNT'ers do.
As I have no idea of the posting history of whomever responded, I can't make an
accurate judgment - but I have a sneaking suspicion.