The 45 Questions - One by One (#17)
Ben Holmes
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 *
Grizzlie Antagonist
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.
The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments on these
questions. (Or, as it is beginning to appear, his complete absence!!)
**********************************************************************
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.
[And, of course, should he do so this time, he'll snip the previous sentence as
well as this one (as he's repeatedly done before) - no need to allow his
carefully censored group to know that he's running from the evidence in this
case.]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
John McAdams
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?
You snipped the part of his testimony where he said "the family"
didn't want that done.
But the Blumberg memo shows him saying that:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
"The family" was expecting to have an open casket funeral, and was
wanting the autopsy wound up quickly.
It's not clear the crew on the 17th floor actually ordered the
autopsists to cut anything short, but they were most certainly calling
down and wanting to know when it would be done.
See Manchester.
See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
Now, expect Holmes to simply ignore this and pretend that the question
was never addressed.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
As usual, John is too dishonest to reply to a post without unmarked snipping. So
I added it back in for future readers.
**********************************************************************
Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above material.
In article <ttgkk59eaberk2ful...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 10 Jan 2010 09:45:26 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.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?
>
>You snipped the part of his testimony where he said "the family"
>didn't want that done.
Speaking of snipping, let's add back in the rest of the post that you snipped
with no notice:
Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
[And, of course, should he do so this time, he'll snip the previous sentence as
well as this one (as he's repeatedly done before) - no need to allow his
carefully censored group to know that he's running from the evidence in this
case.]
Rather dishonest of you, isn't it John? You *HAVE* run in the past from this
question, and you're evading it again.
The question, John, was why was the 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?
Did you not understand the question?
I'm clearly pointing out that the prosectors *WERE* allowed to dissect some
areas, yet 'forbidden' from dissecting other areas.
You realize, of course, that your answer is a non-answer? The "family", had it
objected, would have objected to *ANY* dissection of wounds, not simply
particular ones. This is why I was careful to word my question this way...
So would you like to try answering the question rather than evading it?
Or would you prefer to snip and run again?
>But the Blumberg memo shows him saying that:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
>
>"The family" was expecting to have an open casket funeral, and was
>wanting the autopsy wound up quickly.
As you well know, it was not quick at all.
>It's not clear the crew on the 17th floor actually ordered the
>autopsists to cut anything short, but they were most certainly calling
>down and wanting to know when it would be done.
It's a *FACT* that it lasted longer than an average autopsy.
It was not quick at all.
>See Manchester.
>
>See:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
I'm amused that you would cite the HSCA on the medical evidence, yet run
screaming away from the FACT that they lied outright on the medical evidence.
Do you ever plan to address this major problem?
>Now, expect Holmes to simply ignore this and pretend that the question
>was never addressed.
It wasn't, John. You've evaded the question, and your answer does *NOT* address
the question. I worded it specifically to avoid such a nonsensical reply.
YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THE 'FAMILY' WOULD HAVE ALLOWED DISSECTION OF 'WOUNDS'
CREATED DURING EMERGENCY CARE, YET REFUSE TO ALLOW DISSECTION OF ACTUAL WOUNDS
TO THE BODY.
Nor will you try. You're too dishonest to make an honest effort to answer,
particularly without snipping away evidence of your dishonesty.
Nor was it a particularly fast autopsy. According to to the timeframe - the
prosectors were working on this autopsy for better than 5-6 hours. (And yes, I
*do* know when the evidence shows that the body first entered the morgue)
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above material.
>
>In article <ttgkk59eaberk2ful...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 10 Jan 2010 09:45:26 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.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?
>>
>>You snipped the part of his testimony where he said "the family"
>>didn't want that done.
>
Holmes has no response, having been caught concealing information.
>Speaking of snipping, let's add back in the rest of the post that you snipped
>with no notice:
>
>Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
>
>
>The question, John, was why was the 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?
>
>Did you not understand the question?
>
I not only understood, I answered it.
It's not really honest to say I "didn't answer the question" when I
did answer it, but you just didn't like the answer.
Respond to my answer, if you really have the guts to debate the issue.
>I'm clearly pointing out that the prosectors *WERE* allowed to dissect some
>areas, yet 'forbidden' from dissecting other areas.
>
>You realize, of course, that your answer is a non-answer? The "family", had it
>objected, would have objected to *ANY* dissection of wounds, not simply
>particular ones. This is why I was careful to word my question this way...
>
No, you are just making that up.
In the first place, it's hard to know what "the family" (folks on the
17th floor) actually said, and what was the *interpretation* the
officers in the room who had been in touch with the 17th floor.
The officers (or officer, maybe Burkeley or Galloway) may have known
no more than that "the family" wanted things hurried up.
So, of course, they hurried the autopsists.
>
>>But the Blumberg memo shows him saying that:
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
>>
>>"The family" was expecting to have an open casket funeral, and was
>>wanting the autopsy wound up quickly.
>
>
>As you well know, it was not quick at all.
>
It was a lot quicker than it would have been without the pressure from
the family.
>
>>It's not clear the crew on the 17th floor actually ordered the
>>autopsists to cut anything short, but they were most certainly calling
>>down and wanting to know when it would be done.
>
>
>It's a *FACT* that it lasted longer than an average autopsy.
>
No, that's not true.
If you disagree, post evidence about the typical times for a
*forensic* autopsy in a *multiple gunshot* case.
>It was not quick at all.
>
>
>>See Manchester.
>>
>>See:
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>
>
>I'm amused that you would cite the HSCA on the medical evidence, yet run
>screaming away from the FACT that they lied outright on the medical evidence.
>
And how did the HSCA "lie" about the medical evidence?
It's just not honest to throw out claims that come from nowhere.
>Do you ever plan to address this major problem?
>
I have, you just don't like the answer.
>
>
>>Now, expect Holmes to simply ignore this and pretend that the question
>>was never addressed.
>
>
>It wasn't, John. You've evaded the question, and your answer does *NOT* address
>the question. I worded it specifically to avoid such a nonsensical reply.
>
>YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THE 'FAMILY' WOULD HAVE ALLOWED DISSECTION OF 'WOUNDS'
>CREATED DURING EMERGENCY CARE, YET REFUSE TO ALLOW DISSECTION OF ACTUAL WOUNDS
>TO THE BODY.
>
"The family" was asking "when is it going to be over," and making it
clear they wanted it done quickly.
The autopsists "had the cause of death," and nobody in the room with
authority knew what a proper forensic autopsy would involve.
>
>Nor was it a particularly fast autopsy. According to to the timeframe - the
>prosectors were working on this autopsy for better than 5-6 hours. (And yes, I
>*do* know when the evidence shows that the body first entered the morgue)
>
The autopsy was hurried, that's a simple fact.
Read the HSCA on that:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
And you never bother to think through the logic of your position.
What did the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy think they were
concealing? How, this early, could they possibly know what needed to
be concealed?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
In article <4b4b6157....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
Sorry John, you refuse to understand the question. Let's pretend that I agree
that the family issued the restrictions...
NOW TELL US WHY THEY ALLOWED DISSECTION OF 'WOUNDS' THAT WERE CLEARLY NOT CAUSED
BY ANY ASSASSIN'S BULLET - YET REFUSED TO ALLOW COMPLETE DISSECTION OF THE
ACTUAL WOUNDS!
But you can't address this, can you?
There isn't any non-conspiratorial reason that you can come up with.
>>Speaking of snipping, let's add back in the rest of the post that you snipped
>>with no notice:
>>
>>Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
>>
>>
>>The question, John, was why was the 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?
>>
>>Did you not understand the question?
>
>I not only understood, I answered it.
No John, you didn't.
Merely claiming that the family issued the restrictions DOES NOT ADDRESS THE
QUESTION!
The question has nothing to do with *WHO* issued the restrictions.
>It's not really honest to say I "didn't answer the question" when I
>did answer it, but you just didn't like the answer.
Quote, John, any answer of yours that discusses why the prosectors were allowed
to dissect non-wounds... but refused permission to dissect wounds.
>Respond to my answer, if you really have the guts to debate the issue.
Respond to my answer, if you really have the guts to debate the issue.
But it's clear from your snipping that you can't.
>>I'm clearly pointing out that the prosectors *WERE* allowed to dissect some
>>areas, yet 'forbidden' from dissecting other areas.
>>
>>You realize, of course, that your answer is a non-answer? The "family", had it
>>objected, would have objected to *ANY* dissection of wounds, not simply
>>particular ones. This is why I was careful to word my question this way...
>
>No, you are just making that up.
The question, John, is still there... and still unanswered.
And I really am the expert when it comes to explaining why I worded a question
the way I did. You can't refute it by merely claiming that I'm "making that up".
>In the first place, it's hard to know what "the family" (folks on the
>17th floor) actually said, and what was the *interpretation* the
>officers in the room who had been in touch with the 17th floor.
>
>The officers (or officer, maybe Burkeley or Galloway) may have known
>no more than that "the family" wanted things hurried up.
>
>So, of course, they hurried the autopsists.
This again, fails to address the question. Here it is again:
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? [You've attempted to blame the family for this] Why were they
allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds,
but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? [This question you refuse to
address at all. Why is that, John?] Even John McAdams has run away from
answering this simple question.
[And, of course, should he do so this time, he'll snip the previous sentence as
well as this one (as he's repeatedly done before) - no need to allow his
carefully censored group to know that he's running from the evidence in this
case.]
>>>But the Blumberg memo shows him saying that:
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
>>>
>>>"The family" was expecting to have an open casket funeral, and was
>>>wanting the autopsy wound up quickly.
>>
>>
>>As you well know, it was not quick at all.
>>
>
>It was a lot quicker than it would have been without the pressure from
>the family.
It was *LONGER* than an average autopsy.
>>>It's not clear the crew on the 17th floor actually ordered the
>>>autopsists to cut anything short, but they were most certainly calling
>>>down and wanting to know when it would be done.
>>
>>
>>It's a *FACT* that it lasted longer than an average autopsy.
>>
>
>No, that's not true.
You're a liar, John. Feel free to cite for the average length, but several hours
is typical. This one lasted quite a bit longer, as you well know.
>If you disagree, post evidence about the typical times for a
>*forensic* autopsy in a *multiple gunshot* case.
Feel free to cite, John.
>>It was not quick at all.
>>
>>
>>>See Manchester.
>>>
>>>See:
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>>
>>
>>I'm amused that you would cite the HSCA on the medical evidence, yet run
>>screaming away from the FACT that they lied outright on the medical evidence.
>>
>
>And how did the HSCA "lie" about the medical evidence?
This has been posted many times... I'll post it again within the week, and see
if you dare to respond.
>It's just not honest to throw out claims that come from nowhere.
This has been posted many times before John. If you *really* aren't aware of it,
then you're ignorant.
>>Do you ever plan to address this major problem?
>>
>
>I have, you just don't like the answer.
How can you already have addressed something you deny?
>>>Now, expect Holmes to simply ignore this and pretend that the question
>>>was never addressed.
>>
>>
>> It wasn't, John. You've evaded the question, and your answer does
>> *NOT* address the question. I worded it specifically to avoid such a
>> nonsensical reply.
>>
>>YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THE 'FAMILY' WOULD HAVE ALLOWED DISSECTION OF 'WOUNDS'
>>CREATED DURING EMERGENCY CARE, YET REFUSE TO ALLOW DISSECTION OF ACTUAL WOUNDS
>>TO THE BODY.
>
>"The family" was asking "when is it going to be over," and making it
>clear they wanted it done quickly.
So instead of concentrating their dissection efforts *ONLY* on wounds created by
an assassin[s], they spent time on 'wounds' to the body that were clearly done
in the emergency room...
Tell us John, does that even make sense?
>The autopsists "had the cause of death," and nobody in the room with
>authority knew what a proper forensic autopsy would involve.
So why can't you answer the question?
>>Nor was it a particularly fast autopsy. According to to the timeframe - the
>>prosectors were working on this autopsy for better than 5-6 hours. (And yes, I
>>*do* know when the evidence shows that the body first entered the morgue)
>
>The autopsy was hurried, that's a simple fact.
It took longer than an average autopsy... that's a simple fact.
>Read the HSCA on that:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>
>And you never bother to think through the logic of your position.
The "logic" of your position is that the "family" said, "Okay, you can dissect
the cut-down wounds in the chest, but stay away from the bullet holes."
Rather silly, isn't it?
But this is what you're left with, since you REFUSE to explain it.
>What did the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy think they were
>concealing? How, this early, could they possibly know what needed to
>be concealed?
The answer is easy John... even *YOU* should be able to answer it.
>.John
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ebc08660035aa6ea
>>> "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?" <<<
Conspiracy theorists love to harp on the supposed "incomplete autopsy"
or the "botched autopsy" performed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck.
But there's really nowhere the conspiracists can go with that type of
argument, and that's because the IMPORTANT/PERTINENT ISSUES at JFK's
autopsy were positively and satisfactorily arrived at, such as: the
cause of death and the details about where the bullets entered and
exited John F. Kennedy's body.
All other criticisms regarding the autopsy take a back seat and are
relatively unimportant when compared with the points mentioned above.
Conspiracists will always ask (naturally): But what about the throat
wound that nobody knew was a bullet hole during the autopsy?
Well, okay. But where does that line of inquiry really go? And more
importantly, where did the bullet go that entered JFK's throat (if
CTers want to suggest that a bullet entered JFK's neck from the front,
as almost all CTers do seem to believe)?
And, just as importantly, where then did the SECOND bullet go that
would have had to enter JFK's back and also not exit his body?
Is a reasonable person supposed to believe that TWO bullets went AWOL
after entering JFK's neck and back, with neither bullet EXITING the
body? TWO of them?!
What are the odds that NEITHER of those bullets that entered Kennedy
but DIDN'T EXIT would not be found? A million to one? A billion to
one?
Plus: Where's the substantial damage to JFK's innards as a result of
those TWO bullets that CTers say entered but never went out the other
side of his body? Answer: there is none. Everything suggests that ONE
bullet went through JFK from back to front. Conspiracists merely wish
to ignore the obvious, with the CTers, instead, choosing to believe
that the autopsy results were totally wrong as a result of foul play
on the part of ___________ (fill in the blank).
The people who constantly whine about how the autopsy was being
"controlled" by the evil military in order to hide the true facts
about President Kennedy's wounds (or some equivalent theory just as
silly) are people who apparently want to completely ignore the fact
that the autopsy performed on 11/22/63 provided the most important
information about how JFK died -- i.e., he was shot twice and only
twice, with both bullets entering the President from behind.
Everything else is just a parlor game. And it's a parlor game that
goes absolutely noplace--except back to these same autopsy results
that we find on page 543 of the Warren Report:
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles
fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from
a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."
aeffects
<snip the nonsense>
sitdown Von Pein, you're irrelevant in this exchange
John McAdams
wrote:
>>>
You just aren't getting this.
They thought they only needed the "cause of death." So they allowed
opening the chest.
They didn't allow dissecting the neck because that would have taken a
lot of time.
>But you can't address this, can you?
>
>
>There isn't any non-conspiratorial reason that you can come up with.
>
Yes, they were in a hurry.
You are just making stuff up. You know nothing about autopsies, but
you somehow think that dissecting the track of the bullet all the way
through the neck would be a higher priority than cracking open the
chest.
>
>Merely claiming that the family issued the restrictions DOES NOT ADDRESS THE
>QUESTION!
>
>The question has nothing to do with *WHO* issued the restrictions.
>
>
>
>>It's not really honest to say I "didn't answer the question" when I
>>did answer it, but you just didn't like the answer.
>
>
>Quote, John, any answer of yours that discusses why the prosectors were allowed
>to dissect non-wounds... but refused permission to dissect wounds.
>
You know nothing about medicine.
You are just making stuff up. You know nothing about autopsies, but
you somehow think that dissecting the track of the bullet all the way
through the neck would be a higher priority than cracking open the
chest.
>
>
>>In the first place, it's hard to know what "the family" (folks on the
>>17th floor) actually said, and what was the *interpretation* the
>>officers in the room who had been in touch with the 17th floor.
>>
>>The officers (or officer, maybe Burkeley or Galloway) may have known
>>no more than that "the family" wanted things hurried up.
>>
>>So, of course, they hurried the autopsists.
>
>
>This again, fails to address the question. Here it is again:
>
>Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
>prosectors? [You've attempted to blame the family for this] Why were they
>allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds,
>but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? [This question you refuse to
>address at all. Why is that, John?] Even John McAdams has run away from
>answering this simple question.
>
Answereed above.
You are just making stuff up. You know nothing about autopsies, but
you somehow think that dissecting the track of the bullet all the way
through the neck would be a higher priority than cracking open the
chest.
>
>
>>>>But the Blumberg memo shows him saying that:
>>>>
>>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
>>>>
>>>>"The family" was expecting to have an open casket funeral, and was
>>>>wanting the autopsy wound up quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>As you well know, it was not quick at all.
>>>
>>
>>It was a lot quicker than it would have been without the pressure from
>>the family.
>
>
>It was *LONGER* than an average autopsy.
>
Again, you are just making stuff up.
Post your evidence that the average *forensic* autopsy involving
*multiple* gunshot wounds would be quicker than the JFK autopsy.
>
>
>>>>It's not clear the crew on the 17th floor actually ordered the
>>>>autopsists to cut anything short, but they were most certainly calling
>>>>down and wanting to know when it would be done.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a *FACT* that it lasted longer than an average autopsy.
>>>
>>
>>No, that's not true.
>
>
>Feel free to cite for the average length, but several hours
>is typical. This one lasted quite a bit longer, as you well know.
>
ROFLAMO!!!
You just assert things you pulled out of your ass, and then think they
become facts until somebody can prove otherwise.
That's not the way it works.
Support your claims.
It's obvious that people in the autopsy room were being rushed by
family and loyal aides on the 17th floor.
>
>
>>If you disagree, post evidence about the typical times for a
>>*forensic* autopsy in a *multiple gunshot* case.
>
>
>Feel free to cite, John.
>
>
It's your claim, you have to support it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm amused that you would cite the HSCA on the medical evidence, yet run
>>>screaming away from the FACT that they lied outright on the medical evidence.
>>>
>>
>>And how did the HSCA "lie" about the medical evidence?
>
>
>This has been posted many times... I'll post it again within the week, and see
>if you dare to respond.
>
You're hoping I'll be bored with you in a week.
>
>>Read the HSCA on that:
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>>
>>And you never bother to think through the logic of your position.
>
>
>The "logic" of your position is that the "family" said, "Okay, you can dissect
>the cut-down wounds in the chest, but stay away from the bullet holes."
>
>Rather silly, isn't it?
>
>But this is what you're left with, since you REFUSE to explain it.
>
>
>>What did the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy think they were
>>concealing? How, this early, could they possibly know what needed to
>>be concealed?
>
>
>The answer is easy John... even *YOU* should be able to answer it.
>
>
Sashay(tm)!!
Holmes knows that he can't answer the question.
Ben Holmes
So your assertion is that the prosectors were trying to support the Kennedy
family "restriction".
Since you *KNOW* that it was almost certainly Dr. Humes who issued the
restriction.
But anyone who's studied the evidence knows that the situation is *NOT* as
you're describing it - it was the pressure of the PROSECTORS to try to do a more
complete autopsy.
>>But you can't address this, can you?
>>
>>
>>There isn't any non-conspiratorial reason that you can come up with.
>>
>
>Yes, they were in a hurry.
How long would it take to examine the clothes?
How long did it take to dissect wounds that they *KNEW* could not have been
related to the cause of death?
>You are just making stuff up.
You love this statement, clearly. But sad to say, I'm speaking about the
evidence in this case. It would do me no good at all to "make things up".
>You know nothing about autopsies, but
>you somehow think that dissecting the track of the bullet all the way
>through the neck would be a higher priority than cracking open the
>chest.
It had the highest priority of all, short of actually removing bullets.
>>Merely claiming that the family issued the restrictions DOES NOT ADDRESS THE
>>QUESTION!
>>
>>The question has nothing to do with *WHO* issued the restrictions.
Dead silence...
>>>It's not really honest to say I "didn't answer the question" when I
>>>did answer it, but you just didn't like the answer.
>>
>>
>> Quote, John, any answer of yours that discusses why the prosectors were
>> allowed to dissect non-wounds... but refused permission to dissect wounds.
>>
>
>You know nothing about medicine.
Quote, John, any answer of yours that discusses why the prosectors were allowed
to dissect non-wounds... but refused permission to dissect wounds.
You asserted you've answered this...
Why can't you show that you did?
>You are just making stuff up. You know nothing about autopsies, but
>you somehow think that dissecting the track of the bullet all the way
>through the neck would be a higher priority than cracking open the
>chest.
Hmmm... where have I seen this paragraph before?
>>>In the first place, it's hard to know what "the family" (folks on the
>>>17th floor) actually said, and what was the *interpretation* the
>>>officers in the room who had been in touch with the 17th floor.
>>>
>>>The officers (or officer, maybe Burkeley or Galloway) may have known
>>>no more than that "the family" wanted things hurried up.
>>>
>>>So, of course, they hurried the autopsists.
>>
>>
>>This again, fails to address the question. Here it is again:
>>
>>Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
>>prosectors? [You've attempted to blame the family for this] Why were they
>>allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds,
>>but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? [This question you refuse to
>>address at all. Why is that, John?] Even John McAdams has run away from
>>answering this simple question.
>>
>
>Answereed above.
No John, you have *NOT* answered it. You've given NO REASON WHATSOEVER why
dissecting chest incisions was allowed, but tracking the bullet was not.
YOU'RE A LIAR, JOHN!!! Why can't you answer the question, or failing that,
refuse to assert that you did?
>You are just making stuff up. You know nothing about autopsies, but
>you somehow think that dissecting the track of the bullet all the way
>through the neck would be a higher priority than cracking open the
>chest.
Hmmm... where have I seen this before?
>>>>>But the Blumberg memo shows him saying that:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>"The family" was expecting to have an open casket funeral, and was
>>>>>wanting the autopsy wound up quickly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As you well know, it was not quick at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was a lot quicker than it would have been without the pressure from
>>>the family.
>>
>>
>>It was *LONGER* than an average autopsy.
>
>Again, you are just making stuff up.
A simple Google search will reveal the average autopsy to last only a few hours
at best.
Anyone can review the evidence to discover that JFK's body was being worked on
far longer.
>Post your evidence that the average *forensic* autopsy involving
>*multiple* gunshot wounds would be quicker than the JFK autopsy.
Nope.
>>>>>It's not clear the crew on the 17th floor actually ordered the
>>>>>autopsists to cut anything short, but they were most certainly calling
>>>>>down and wanting to know when it would be done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a *FACT* that it lasted longer than an average autopsy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, that's not true.
>>
>>
>>Feel free to cite for the average length, but several hours
>>is typical. This one lasted quite a bit longer, as you well know.
>>
>
>ROFLAMO!!!
>
>You just assert things you pulled out of your ass, and then think they
>become facts until somebody can prove otherwise.
http://www.forensiconline.com/generallink.htm#a21
(By the way, I've had this cite waiting for you to pull this accusation out of
your hat.)
>That's not the way it works.
>
>Support your claims.
http://www.forensiconline.com/generallink.htm#a21
>It's obvious that people in the autopsy room were being rushed by
>family and loyal aides on the 17th floor.
It's FACTUAL HISTORY that it took longer than the average autopsy.
>>>If you disagree, post evidence about the typical times for a
>>>*forensic* autopsy in a *multiple gunshot* case.
>>
>>
>>Feel free to cite, John.
>
>It's your claim, you have to support it.
Done so.
But citing doesn't mean anything to you. I can cite the *REAL* authority who
issued the restriction against viewing the clothing, and you'll *STILL* lie
about it.
>>>>I'm amused that you would cite the HSCA on the medical evidence, yet run
>>>>screaming away from the FACT that they lied outright on the medical evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And how did the HSCA "lie" about the medical evidence?
>>
>>
>>This has been posted many times... I'll post it again within the week, and see
>>if you dare to respond.
>>
>
>You're hoping I'll be bored with you in a week.
Au Contraire!! I look forward to your embarrassment and refusal to address the
facts.
I'll be sure your name is in the title of the post, so you won't miss it.
>>>Read the HSCA on that:
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>>>
>>>And you never bother to think through the logic of your position.
>>
>>
>>The "logic" of your position is that the "family" said, "Okay, you can dissect
>>the cut-down wounds in the chest, but stay away from the bullet holes."
>>
>>Rather silly, isn't it?
>>
>>But this is what you're left with, since you REFUSE to explain it.
>>
>>
>>>What did the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy think they were
>>>concealing? How, this early, could they possibly know what needed to
>>>be concealed?
>>
>>
>>The answer is easy John... even *YOU* should be able to answer it.
>>
>>
>
>Sashay(tm)!!
>
>Holmes knows that he can't answer the question.
Shots from the front. You *SHOULD* have been able to answer it John... but all
you're doing is demonstrating intentional ignorance.
David Von Pein
>>> "A simple Google search will reveal the average autopsy to last only a few hours at best." <<<
And that's exactly how long JFK's autopsy lasted--"a few hours"--from
8:00 PM to approximately 11:00 PM.
DR. HUMES -- "The autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that
evening [11/22/63]. .... The examination was concluded approximately
at 11 o'clock on the night of November 22."
You're surely not counting the reconstruction of JFK's head by the
morticians as being part of the official "autopsy", are you? If you
are counting that...why?
David Von Pein
>>> "You're hoping I'll be bored with you [Ben Holmes] in a week." <<<
Who wouldn't be?