Facts LNT'ers Simply *Hate* (#11)
Ben Holmes
Hate", for some strange reason, no LNT'er has provided any reasonable theories
or facts in rebuttal. So perhaps I'm on the right track.
My next interesting fact that LNT'ers simply despise when it's mentioned, is
that the autopsy did not show any bullet transiting the body. But this is
merely historical fact.
Our first, and *only* evidence based on a medical examination, albeit brief -
stated that the throat wound was an entry wound. Despite Spector's almost
frantic efforts to hide this fact, (particularly concerning the news conference
at Parkland) it's no longer disputable. The WC was rarely so dishonest as at
this point... for example:
Representative FORD - I was thinking, was there an official recording either
made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government
agency?
Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
Yet all the Commission had to do was actually *ask* the White House Press
Office. But this was something that they *DIDN'T* want to know. And they were
successful at "not knowing". But we know today that Perry stated on three
separate occasions during that news conference that this was an entry wound in
the throat.
As the prosectors state that they were unaware of the throat wound during the
autopsy, and in any case were ordered *not* to dissect the track of the wound,
they could not present any medical examination or evidence that would dispute
what the Parkland doctors had stated.
So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
examination. And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
"transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
than the weekend of the assassination.
Interestingly, a photo that could have shed some light on the topic has
disappeared while under government control - the interior chest photo that
allegedly showed the damage of a transiting bullet.
Any LNT'ers willing to defend these historical facts?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Although I'm getting many replies to my new series of "Facts LNT'ers Simply
> Hate", for some strange reason, no LNT'er has provided any reasonable theories
> or facts in rebuttal.
What is the rebuttal to Chaney not testifying? He didn`t testify,
that`s not going to change. Neither will the object in the x-ray, or
the fact that some cleaning was done by the SS on the backseat of the
limo. The real question is, after 40-plus years, what can Ben
*establish*, as opposed to just *say*, that these things mean?
> So perhaps I'm on the right track.
No, you`ve been off your tracks for quite some time now. I`d say you
are doing an excellent job of showing the fallacy of your position. You
allege a vast, complex operation, but don`t seem to have shed light on
one small part of it (who told who to perform what task). You establish
no prior planning to this vast, complex operation. And precious little
of the questions you ask pertain to LHO, the prime suspect, the person
who has scads of information indicating he was involved in the
assassination against him.
> My next interesting fact that LNT'ers simply despise when it's mentioned, is
> that the autopsy did not show any bullet transiting the body. But this is
> merely historical fact.
The wound wasn`t disected, and again, it`s is unlikely to happen
any time soon.
> Our first, and *only* evidence based on a medical examination,
What is Ben`s expertise in this area? More than the team of
forensic scientists who examined the medical evidence for the HSCA.
> albeit brief -
> stated that the throat wound was an entry wound. Despite Spector's almost
> frantic efforts to hide this fact, (particularly concerning the news conference
> at Parkland) it's no longer disputable. The WC was rarely so dishonest as at
> this point... for example:
Kook reasoing #3, no take backs. Intitial conclusions are carved in
stone, and cannot be changed as more information becomes available.
Kook shit.
> Representative FORD - I was thinking, was there an official recording either
> made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government
> agency?
> Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
>
> Yet all the Commission had to do was actually *ask* the White House Press
> Office. But this was something that they *DIDN'T* want to know.
So, Ben`s theory is Ford didn`t want to know, so he asked about it.
> And they were
> successful at "not knowing". But we know today that Perry stated on three
> separate occasions during that news conference that this was an entry wound in
> the throat.
That would make Perry wrong three times (thats why they are known
as medical *opinions*). Put the kook version of events on the table,
where the neck wound is an entrance. Where did it go, what did it hit?
> As the prosectors state that they were unaware of the throat wound during the
> autopsy, and in any case were ordered *not* to dissect the track of the wound,
> they could not present any medical examination or evidence that would dispute
> what the Parkland doctors had stated.
Typical kook reasoning. Lets pretend mistakes are facts, that will
help us figure out what happened.
> So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
> speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
> examination.
How did Perry know the neck wound was a bullet wound without
dissection? What means did he rule out it being a stab wound, there
aren`t stab wounds that look like bullet wounds? How would Perry know
that the force of the headshot didn`t drive JFK`s head down onto
something that punctured his throat? Lets muddle things completely,
that ought to help us figure out what happened.
> And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
> "transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
> than the weekend of the assassination.
So? It`s never too late to arrive at the correct conclusion.Kooks
would have an answer immediately, made on the spot by the first doctor
available, and stick with that over any other information developed.
> Interestingly, a photo that could have shed some light on the topic has
> disappeared while under government control - the interior chest photo that
> allegedly showed the damage of a transiting bullet.
Luckily that damage was noted in writings.
> Any LNT'ers willing to defend these historical facts?
The fact that the wound wasn`t dissected? No, I don`t. It would
have been better if it had, it would have given kooks one less thing to
squalk about.
Charlie Henrickson
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Although I'm getting many replies to my new series of "Facts LNT'ers Simply
>> Hate", for some strange reason, no LNT'er has provided any reasonable theories
>> or facts in rebuttal.
>
> What is the rebuttal to Chaney not testifying? He didn`t testify,
>that`s not going to change. Neither will the object in the x-ray, or
>the fact that some cleaning was done by the SS on the backseat of the
>limo. The real question is, after 40-plus years, what can Ben
>*establish*, as opposed to just *say*, that these things mean?
>
>> So perhaps I'm on the right track.
>
> No, you`ve been off your tracks for quite some time now. I`d say you
>are doing an excellent job of showing the fallacy of your position. You
>allege a vast, complex operation, but don`t seem to have shed light on
>one small part of it (who told who to perform what task). You establish
>no prior planning to this vast, complex operation. And precious little
>of the questions you ask pertain to LHO, the prime suspect, the person
>who has scads of information indicating he was involved in the
>assassination against him.
>
>> My next interesting fact that LNT'ers simply despise when it's mentioned, is
>> that the autopsy did not show any bullet transiting the body. But this is
>> merely historical fact.
>
> The wound wasn`t disected, and again, it`s is unlikely to happen
>any time soon.
Not sure what this response means. The fact remains: the autopsy did
not show any bullet transiting the body. Nor did any other evidence.
What evidence we have indicates that the bullet that his JFK's back
did not transit (Humes' testimony, the holes in Kennedy's clothing,
the throat wound as described by Dr Perry).
>
>> Our first, and *only* evidence based on a medical examination,
>
> What is Ben`s expertise in this area? More than the team of
>forensic scientists who examined the medical evidence for the HSCA.
>
>> albeit brief -
>> stated that the throat wound was an entry wound. Despite Spector's almost
>> frantic efforts to hide this fact, (particularly concerning the news conference
>> at Parkland) it's no longer disputable. The WC was rarely so dishonest as at
>> this point... for example:
>
> Kook reasoing #3, no take backs. Intitial conclusions are carved in
>stone, and cannot be changed as more information becomes available.
>Kook shit.
>
>> Representative FORD - I was thinking, was there an official recording either
>> made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government
>> agency?
>> Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
>>
>> Yet all the Commission had to do was actually *ask* the White House Press
>> Office. But this was something that they *DIDN'T* want to know.
>
> So, Ben`s theory is Ford didn`t want to know, so he asked about it.
Just stupid. Ben's theory seems to be that Ford asked the wrong
person and didn't pursue the question further. It's not proof, but
it's more plausible than saying that this exchange settled the
question, if that's what you're saying. If you're saying anything at
all.
>
>> And they were
>> successful at "not knowing". But we know today that Perry stated on three
>> separate occasions during that news conference that this was an entry wound in
>> the throat.
>
> That would make Perry wrong three times (thats why they are known
>as medical *opinions*). Put the kook version of events on the table,
>where the neck wound is an entrance. Where did it go, what did it hit?
What exactly "would make Perry wrong"? Oh, that he stated, 3 times,
that the throat wound was an entrance. Since you know better, please
present your evidence.
>
>> As the prosectors state that they were unaware of the throat wound during the
>> autopsy, and in any case were ordered *not* to dissect the track of the wound,
>> they could not present any medical examination or evidence that would dispute
>> what the Parkland doctors had stated.
>
> Typical kook reasoning. Lets pretend mistakes are facts, that will
>help us figure out what happened.
Is "kook" the new buzzword recommended by Lone Nutter Central?
Careful---overusing it will give it away.
>
>> So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
>> speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
>> examination.
>
> How did Perry know the neck wound was a bullet wound without
>dissection?
He didn't know, he *thought" it was an exit wound because, Nurse
Henchliffe's words, "it was just a little hole in the middle of his
neck....about as big around as the end of my little finger....it was
just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit wounds I
have seen." In Dr Carrico's words, it was a "small penetrating wound
of ant. neck".
>What means did he rule out it being a stab wound, there
>aren`t stab wounds that look like bullet wounds? How would Perry know
>that the force of the headshot didn`t drive JFK`s head down onto
>something that punctured his throat? Lets muddle things completely,
>that ought to help us figure out what happened.
OK!! You do it quite well. Asking questions that you don't know the
answer to is not argument, it's just a diversionary tactic. And don't
you wish you could take back the one about something that punctured
his throat? Man, that's a good one. Got a little carried away there
did you?
>
>> And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
>> "transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
>> than the weekend of the assassination.
>
> So? It`s never too late to arrive at the correct conclusion.Kooks
>would have an answer immediately, made on the spot by the first doctor
>available, and stick with that over any other information developed.
You're right. That's why J. Edgar had the answer before 24 hours had
passed. He's what you mean by a "kook" right? The head of a federal
police force who makes a conclusion with no evidence whatsoever beyond
a library card? It's never too late to arrive at the correct
conclusion----that's why we're still trying.
>
>> Interestingly, a photo that could have shed some light on the topic has
>> disappeared while under government control - the interior chest photo that
>> allegedly showed the damage of a transiting bullet.
>
> Luckily that damage was noted in writings.
Where did it go, what did it hit?
>
>> Any LNT'ers willing to defend these historical facts?
>
> The fact that the wound wasn`t dissected? No, I don`t. It would
>have been better if it had, it would have given kooks one less thing to
>squalk about.
There's that word again! Careful.
Bud
Yah, because the bullet path wasn`t disected. And that`s not about
to change any time soon.
You`ll fit in well here.
No, it`s an honest question. How did Perry determine this to be a
gunshot wound, and not a stab wound?
> And don't
> you wish you could take back the one about something that punctured
> his throat? Man, that's a good one. Got a little carried away there
> did you?
No, I liked so much I`ll repeat it. How did Perry determine this to
be a gunshot wound?
> >> And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
> >> "transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
> >> than the weekend of the assassination.
> >
> > So? It`s never too late to arrive at the correct conclusion.Kooks
> >would have an answer immediately, made on the spot by the first doctor
> >available, and stick with that over any other information developed.
> You're right. That's why J. Edgar had the answer before 24 hours had
> passed.
Hoover thought the throat was an entry wound also?
> He's what you mean by a "kook" right? The head of a federal
> police force who makes a conclusion with no evidence whatsoever beyond
> a library card? It's never too late to arrive at the correct
> conclusion----that's why we're still trying.
I`m not working on the case at all, thats been a done deal for
decades. I`m working on the kooks.
> >> Interestingly, a photo that could have shed some light on the topic has
> >> disappeared while under government control - the interior chest photo that
> >> allegedly showed the damage of a transiting bullet.
> >
> > Luckily that damage was noted in writings.
> Where did it go, what did it hit?
> >
> >> Any LNT'ers willing to defend these historical facts?
> >
> > The fact that the wound wasn`t dissected? No, I don`t. It would
> >have been better if it had, it would have given kooks one less thing to
> >squalk about.
> There's that word again! Careful.
Why? It`s not like I`m running with scissors.
aeffects
Just when there's hope for your sorry L\lone neuter ass, you chime in
with the incomprehensible, AGAIN, LMAO! KUTGW dufus don't let CTer's
down... roflmfao!
David VP
Damn straight.
It's actually Bud's perfectly-accurate creation (unless Bud got it from
some other smart LNer).
But I got it from Bud, who has allowed me to borrow the line at will --
thank goodness -- because "kook" fits RCTers (Rabid Conspiracy
Theorists; that one's mine alone) to a tee.
Does it fit you too, Charlie? Time shall tell I reckon.
lazu...@webtv.net
Parkland docs as a "punctate", or puncture wound. Such trerminology
refers to an object penetration from without, certainly not from within
going out. These trauma surgeons, practicing in a gun-loving city like
Dallas, had plenty of experience in the treatment of gunshot victims,
and knew an entrance wound when they saw one. They concurred that the
throat wound appeared to be an entrance. It was small and circular, with
smooth edging. By contrast, the huge ragged defect in the right rear of
the head, oozing blood and brain matter, appeared to be an obvious exit
wound to these docs.
tomnln
wounds per year.
CD Rom "First on Scene"
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16827-44...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
Bud
Then get off the floor and answer my question. You`re not going to
claim that it hasn`t happened in emergency rooms that stab wounds have
never been thought to be bullet wounds by doctors, or vice versa, are
you? If someone comes in with what appears to be a stab wound, but upon
x-raying the wound a bullet is revealed, do they stick with their first
conclusion, and treat it as a stab wound?
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Dr. Carrico's "small penetrating wound" was also described by the
> Parkland docs as a "punctate", or puncture wound. Such trerminology
> refers to an object penetration from without, certainly not from within
> going out.
Really? If a person was stabbed with something long enough to come
out their other side, it could onlly be described as a puncture wound
from the entry side?
> These trauma surgeons, practicing in a gun-loving city like
> Dallas, had plenty of experience in the treatment of gunshot victims,
> and knew an entrance wound when they saw one.
How did they determine it was a gunshot wound, and not a stab wound?
> They concurred that the
> throat wound appeared to be an entrance. It was small and circular, with
> smooth edging.
Sound like a wound that could be created using hundreds of items.
How did they conclude that it must have been a bullet?
> By contrast, the huge ragged defect in the right rear of
> the head, oozing blood and brain matter, appeared to be an obvious exit
> wound to these docs.
One wound and a time. Remember your kook handbook, isolate and
microanalyze information.
Ben Holmes
says...
Yep... absolutely true. And another fact just *hated* by LNT'ers. "Transit"
was a *SPECULATION* not based on a primary examination of the body.
And interestingly enough, the cervical X-ray and the inside chest photo, both of
which would bear *DIRECTLY* on this issue - have disappeared. And LNT'ers have
no explanation for that, either.
>>> Our first, and *only* evidence based on a medical examination,
>>
>> What is Ben`s expertise in this area? More than the team of
>>forensic scientists who examined the medical evidence for the HSCA.
Produce the "forensic scientist" who can refute what I said.
>>> albeit brief -
>>> stated that the throat wound was an entry wound. Despite Spector's almost
>>>frantic efforts to hide this fact, (particularly concerning the news conference
>>>at Parkland) it's no longer disputable. The WC was rarely so dishonest as at
>>> this point... for example:
>>
>> Kook reasoing #3, no take backs. Intitial conclusions are carved in
>>stone, and cannot be changed as more information becomes available.
>>Kook shit.
A rather sad attempt to support the WC's blatant lies at this point.
>>> Representative FORD - I was thinking, was there an official recording either
>>>made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government
>>> agency?
>>> Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
>>>
>>> Yet all the Commission had to do was actually *ask* the White House Press
>>> Office. But this was something that they *DIDN'T* want to know.
>>
>> So, Ben`s theory is Ford didn`t want to know, so he asked about it.
>Just stupid. Ben's theory seems to be that Ford asked the wrong
>person and didn't pursue the question further. It's not proof, but
>it's more plausible than saying that this exchange settled the
>question, if that's what you're saying. If you're saying anything at
>all.
This is really quite simple, Bud... The *PROOF* of what Perry had asserted
during the news conference was easy to find. The WC failed to find it.
>>> And they were
>>> successful at "not knowing". But we know today that Perry stated on three
>>>separate occasions during that news conference that this was an entry wound in
>>> the throat.
>>
>> That would make Perry wrong three times (thats why they are known
>>as medical *opinions*). Put the kook version of events on the table,
>>where the neck wound is an entrance. Where did it go, what did it hit?
Made Perry wrong *BASED ON A SPECULATION!!* Yeah... right!
>What exactly "would make Perry wrong"? Oh, that he stated, 3 times,
>that the throat wound was an entrance. Since you know better, please
>present your evidence.
Bud can't.
>>>As the prosectors state that they were unaware of the throat wound during the
>>>autopsy, and in any case were ordered *not* to dissect the track of the wound,
>>>they could not present any medical examination or evidence that would dispute
>>> what the Parkland doctors had stated.
>>
>> Typical kook reasoning.
Each of the three statements presented in the above sentence are *FACTS*. There
was no "reasoning" presented.
>>Lets pretend mistakes are facts, that will
>>help us figure out what happened.
>
>Is "kook" the new buzzword recommended by Lone Nutter Central?
>Careful---overusing it will give it away.
It's been quite frequently used lately. It merely illustrates the weakness of
their position.
>>> So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
>>> speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
>>> examination.
>>
>> How did Perry know the neck wound was a bullet wound without
>>dissection?
>
>He didn't know, he *thought" it was an exit wound because, Nurse
>Henchliffe's words, "it was just a little hole in the middle of his
>neck....about as big around as the end of my little finger....it was
>just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit wounds I
>have seen." In Dr Carrico's words, it was a "small penetrating wound
>of ant. neck".
I presume you meant to use the word "entry" rather than "exit".
>>What means did he rule out it being a stab wound, there
>>aren`t stab wounds that look like bullet wounds? How would Perry know
>>that the force of the headshot didn`t drive JFK`s head down onto
>>something that punctured his throat? Lets muddle things completely,
>>that ought to help us figure out what happened.
>
>OK!! You do it quite well. Asking questions that you don't know the
>answer to is not argument, it's just a diversionary tactic. And don't
>you wish you could take back the one about something that punctured
>his throat? Man, that's a good one. Got a little carried away there
>did you?
Bud likes to play the clown. It's for that reason that I've put him in my
killfile... along with Tommy Lowry and Grizzlie.
>>> And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
>>> "transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
>>> than the weekend of the assassination.
>>
>> So? It`s never too late to arrive at the correct conclusion.
This means that the prosectors lied about the autopsy report. It means that the
WC lied about the autopsy report.
Interesting that you'd so happily accept such a set of lies.
>>Kooks
>>would have an answer immediately, made on the spot by the first doctor
>>available, and stick with that over any other information developed.
>
>You're right. That's why J. Edgar had the answer before 24 hours had
>passed. He's what you mean by a "kook" right? The head of a federal
>police force who makes a conclusion with no evidence whatsoever beyond
>a library card? It's never too late to arrive at the correct
>conclusion----that's why we're still trying.
>>
>>> Interestingly, a photo that could have shed some light on the topic has
>>> disappeared while under government control - the interior chest photo that
>>> allegedly showed the damage of a transiting bullet.
>>
>> Luckily that damage was noted in writings.
That is a poor explanation, Bud. Care to try again?
In fact, let's look at your answer for a moment. You stated that "luckily the
damage was noted in writings"... implying that if it was written down, it was
accurate.
The prosectors *ALSO* wrote down that the entry hole was right next to the EOP.
Why do you refuse to believe what they "wrote down"???
> Where did it go, what did it hit?
The entering neck bullet? It hit the trachea, and ranged downward into the
chest.
Causing the respiratory problems that led to the insertion of chest tubes.
>>> Any LNT'ers willing to defend these historical facts?
>>
>> The fact that the wound wasn`t dissected? No, I don`t.
And there it is. LNT'ers *HAVE NO EXPLANATION*. How sad...
aeffects
Dudster, Listen up, guy --
A guy is riding around in the backseat of a exposed (convertible) LIMO,
along with others (in the same vehicle). He's shot (officially
determined from the rear, contrary to medical personnel eyewitness
testimony), in short; his brains have been blown out, which is obvious
to attending medical personnel at a same city hospital emergency room.
Another person in the same vehicle suffered from multiple gunshot
wounds. He, and the other gunshot victim were brought for emergency
treatment All wounds happened while the vehicle was moving on a city
street. Occupant number one dies from catastropic head wound, the
second victim, is in critical condition with multiple gunshot
wounds....
Tell me and the rest of the world how a emergency room doctor would
come to a conclusion, even a cursory conclusion, that either of the
victims was stabbed? Again, while the vehicle both victims rode in was
moving down a city street! Not to mention nother vehicle with observing
occupants was less than 15 feet behind them?
You questioning the competence of the Parkland emergency room doctors,
or just blowing smoke out your ass, hoping no one reading this thread
will notice, that autopsy prosecutors were not allowed to do a
complete autopsy?
Bud
You have my full attention, kook.
> A guy is riding around in the backseat of a exposed (convertible) LIMO,
> along with others (in the same vehicle). He's shot (officially
> determined from the rear, contrary to medical personnel eyewitness
> testimony), in short; his brains have been blown out, which is obvious
> to attending medical personnel at a same city hospital emergency room.
> Another person in the same vehicle suffered from multiple gunshot
> wounds. He, and the other gunshot victim were brought for emergency
> treatment All wounds happened while the vehicle was moving on a city
> street. Occupant number one dies from catastropic head wound, the
> second victim, is in critical condition with multiple gunshot
> wounds....
>
> Tell me and the rest of the world how a emergency room doctor would
> come to a conclusion, even a cursory conclusion, that either of the
> victims was stabbed?
Are you saying Perry was in Dealey Plaza, and knew all this when he
determined that this wound was a gunshot entry wound? On the grassy
knoll, perhaps?
> Again, while the vehicle both victims rode in was
> moving down a city street! Not to mention nother vehicle with observing
> occupants was less than 15 feet behind them?
All details Perry would be unaware of, when he looked at this wound,
and decided it was an gunshot entry wound. How did he reach this
conclusion? How did he rule out it being a stab wound?
> You questioning the competence of the Parkland emergency room doctors,
> or just blowing smoke out your ass, hoping no one reading this thread
> will notice,
No, I`m playing by kook rules. You guys want to create muddle, so
that nothing can be determined, lets play that game. Perry didn`t
dissect the wound, Perry had no x-rays showing a bullet, he merely
looked at a round wound, and declared it a bullet entry hole. My
question is, based on what? Further, was Jackie checked for any weapon
that might have been used to produce a round hole in her husband`s
throat?
Bud
Then why have autopsies when "primary examination" exists?
> And interestingly enough, the cervical X-ray and the inside chest photo, both of
> which would bear *DIRECTLY* on this issue - have disappeared. And LNT'ers have
> no explanation for that, either.
Them being lost would explain them being missing, no?
> >>> Our first, and *only* evidence based on a medical examination,
> >>
> >> What is Ben`s expertise in this area? More than the team of
> >>forensic scientists who examined the medical evidence for the HSCA.
>
>
> Produce the "forensic scientist" who can refute what I said.
Produce you credentials with which you dispute the findings of
forensic scientists.
> >>> albeit brief -
> >>> stated that the throat wound was an entry wound. Despite Spector's almost
> >>>frantic efforts to hide this fact, (particularly concerning the news conference
> >>>at Parkland) it's no longer disputable. The WC was rarely so dishonest as at
> >>> this point... for example:
> >>
> >> Kook reasoning #3, no take backs. Intitial conclusions are carved in
> >>stone, and cannot be changed as more information becomes available.
> >>Kook shit.
>
>
> A rather sad attempt to support the WC's blatant lies at this point.
Don`t be sad, address what I said.
> >>> Representative FORD - I was thinking, was there an official recording either
> >>>made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government
> >>> agency?
> >>> Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
> >>>
> >>> Yet all the Commission had to do was actually *ask* the White House Press
> >>> Office. But this was something that they *DIDN'T* want to know.
> >>
> >> So, Ben`s theory is Ford didn`t want to know, so he asked about it.
> >Just stupid. Ben's theory seems to be that Ford asked the wrong
> >person and didn't pursue the question further. It's not proof, but
> >it's more plausible than saying that this exchange settled the
> >question, if that's what you're saying. If you're saying anything at
> >all.
>
>
> This is really quite simple, Bud... The *PROOF* of what Perry had asserted
> during the news conference was easy to find. The WC failed to find it.
And you have Ford asking for information you claim he didn`t want,
and you also assume that Ford knew that Perry could not direct him to
the information Ford asked about. Wouldn`t it be simpiler just for Ford
not to ask that question?
> >>> And they were
> >>> successful at "not knowing". But we know today that Perry stated on three
> >>>separate occasions during that news conference that this was an entry wound in
> >>> the throat.
> >>
> >> That would make Perry wrong three times (thats why they are known
> >>as medical *opinions*). Put the kook version of events on the table,
> >>where the neck wound is an entrance. Where did it go, what did it hit?
>
> Made Perry wrong *BASED ON A SPECULATION!!* Yeah... right!
It`s only speculation that he was correct.
> >What exactly "would make Perry wrong"? Oh, that he stated, 3 times,
> >that the throat wound was an entrance. Since you know better, please
> >present your evidence.
>
> Bud can't.
Sure Bud can. There were witnesses to a person shooting within the
same time frame that wounds were appearing in JFK`s body. That person
was behind JFK at the time.
> >>>As the prosectors state that they were unaware of the throat wound during the
> >>>autopsy, and in any case were ordered *not* to dissect the track of the wound,
> >>>they could not present any medical examination or evidence that would dispute
> >>> what the Parkland doctors had stated.
> >>
> >> Typical kook reasoning.
>
>
> Each of the three statements presented in the above sentence are *FACTS*. There
> was no "reasoning" presented.
No, they aren`t. I remember the person who said that he was ordered
not to dissect the neck wound always qualified it with "as I remember",
or something similar. He was asked these questions many years after the
fact. Also, to say they could offer any evidence without dissection is
just false. There were indications of damage internally, noted from
x-rays.
> >>Lets pretend mistakes are facts, that will
> >>help us figure out what happened.
> >
> >Is "kook" the new buzzword recommended by Lone Nutter Central?
> >Careful---overusing it will give it away.
>
>
> It's been quite frequently used lately. It merely illustrates the weakness of
> their position.
<snicker> Thats funny, I used a very similar phrase with Marsh last
month. I said, in a tongue in cheek manner "And please, easy on the
kook label. Labeling people only exposes the weakness of your
position." Does anyone think that Ben doesn`t actually read what I
write?
> >>> So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
> >>> speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
> >>> examination.
> >>
> >> How did Perry know the neck wound was a bullet wound without
> >>dissection?
> >
> >He didn't know, he *thought" it was an exit wound because, Nurse
> >Henchliffe's words, "it was just a little hole in the middle of his
> >neck....about as big around as the end of my little finger....it was
> >just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit wounds I
> >have seen." In Dr Carrico's words, it was a "small penetrating wound
> >of ant. neck".
>
> I presume you meant to use the word "entry" rather than "exit".
I presume he understands when the nurse says "like most of the exit
wounds I`ve seen", this actually means that she has seen small round
bullet exitwounds.
> >>What means did he rule out it being a stab wound, there
> >>aren`t stab wounds that look like bullet wounds? How would Perry know
> >>that the force of the headshot didn`t drive JFK`s head down onto
> >>something that punctured his throat? Lets muddle things completely,
> >>that ought to help us figure out what happened.
> >
> >OK!! You do it quite well. Asking questions that you don't know the
> >answer to is not argument, it's just a diversionary tactic. And don't
> >you wish you could take back the one about something that punctured
> >his throat? Man, that's a good one. Got a little carried away there
> >did you?
>
> Bud likes to play the clown.
It`s easier than the fiddle.
> It's for that reason that I've put him in my
> killfile... along with Tommy Lowry and Grizzlie.
We have plenty of room for DVP in here. Then there will be nobody
left to challenge what you say.
> >>> And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
> >>> "transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
> >>> than the weekend of the assassination.
> >>
> >> So? It`s never too late to arrive at the correct conclusion.
>
> This means that the prosectors lied about the autopsy report. It means that the
> WC lied about the autopsy report.
>
> Interesting that you'd so happily accept such a set of lies.
I don`t have the medical training necessary to access them. The
medical evidence seems a mess, so I generally disregard it.
> >>Kooks
> >>would have an answer immediately, made on the spot by the first doctor
> >>available, and stick with that over any other information developed.
> >
> >You're right. That's why J. Edgar had the answer before 24 hours had
> >passed. He's what you mean by a "kook" right? The head of a federal
> >police force who makes a conclusion with no evidence whatsoever beyond
> >a library card? It's never too late to arrive at the correct
> >conclusion----that's why we're still trying.
> >>
> >>> Interestingly, a photo that could have shed some light on the topic has
> >>> disappeared while under government control - the interior chest photo that
> >>> allegedly showed the damage of a transiting bullet.
> >>
> >> Luckily that damage was noted in writings.
>
> That is a poor explanation, Bud. Care to try again?
Why ask questions you can`t see the answer to?
> In fact, let's look at your answer for a moment. You stated that "luckily the
> damage was noted in writings"... implying that if it was written down, it was
> accurate.
>
> The prosectors *ALSO* wrote down that the entry hole was right next to the EOP.
> Why do you refuse to believe what they "wrote down"???
You seem to imply that if you can find an error in one place, that
shows information in another place to be eroneous.
> > Where did it go, what did it hit?
>
> The entering neck bullet? It hit the trachea, and ranged downward into the
> chest.
The trachea isn`t even bone, you think this is going to deflect a
bullet that much?
> Causing the respiratory problems that led to the insertion of chest tubes.
The top of the lung was damaged by the bullet that entered the back
(I think, don`t know the medical evidence that well).
> >>> Any LNT'ers willing to defend these historical facts?
> >>
> >> The fact that the wound wasn`t dissected? No, I don`t.
>
> And there it is. LNT'ers *HAVE NO EXPLANATION*. How sad...
Don`t cry.
> >>It would
> >>have been better if it had, it would have given kooks one less thing to
> >>squalk about.
> >
> >There's that word again! Careful.
Could some kind, good to his mother soul respond to this, so that
Ben might read my scathing remarks?
lazu...@webtv.net
"The medical evidence seems a mess, so I generally disregard it."
Very telling remark. But it doesn't seem to stop you from making wild
assertions based on speculation rather than on fact, and then usually
appealling to the authority of unnamed "forensic scientists"? If you
really studied the medical evidence with an open mind and good
conscience, you would see the mountain of evidence which contradicts the
WC's conclusions of a lone gunman. You will also see a massive cover-up
of the true location and nature of JFK's wounds. This medical evidence
which you so blithely dismiss points right at conspiracy, and you'd have
to be blind deaf and dumb to deny it. Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong
person.
Why were the autopsists prohibited from tracking and exploring the
throat wound? You are forced to either ignore this question, resort to
irrelevent ad hominem, or else reveal your true ignorance of this case.
Which will it be?
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud admitted:
>
> "The medical evidence seems a mess, so I generally disregard it."
>
> Very telling remark.
If it is to you, chances are you`ve misunderstood it. What it means
to me is that it seems that any conclusion can be argued against using
select portions of the medical evidence.
> But it doesn't seem to stop you from making wild
> assertions based on speculation rather than on fact, and then usually
> appealling to the authority of unnamed "forensic scientists"?
Pathologists, better? Balden comes across as a pretty sharp cookie
on TV. He and other foresic pathologists looked at the medical
evidence, and declared rear shots, right?
> If you
> really studied the medical evidence with an open mind and good
> conscience, you would see the mountain of evidence which contradicts the
> WC's conclusions of a lone gunman.
And the HSCA`s conclusion that only Oz`s bullets did damage to the
occupants of the limo.
> You will also see a massive cover-up
> of the true location and nature of JFK's wounds. This medical evidence
> which you so blithely dismiss points right at conspiracy,
I don`t "blithely dismiss", I don`t feel myself qualified to look
at, with no medical training. I`m ignorant on this subject and know it,
you kooks are largely ignorant on this subject, but don`t realize it.
When I look into the simpler issues, I find nothing but
misrepresentation and spin. Why would I expect that if I tackle the
more complex issues, it`ll be any different?
> and you'd have
> to be blind deaf and dumb to deny it. Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong
> person.
You`ve had how many years in medical school?
> Why were the autopsists prohibited from tracking and exploring the
> throat wound? You are forced to either ignore this question, resort to
> irrelevent ad hominem, or else reveal your true ignorance of this case.
> Which will it be?
I think I remember reading that one of them thinks he remembered
being told not to. I don`t think he told the reason. Does that help you
any?
lazu...@webtv.net
I hesitate calling you a bird-brain, because I like birds, and don't
want to insult them..
For your information I had six years of medical training and 30 years of
practice. I at least know enough to ask pertinent questions and give
reasoned answers. What do you do except barf on your keyboard and then
hit the send button.
with your paw?
I haven't seen any response to my questions yet re: prohibition of
autopsy procedures, and the reasons behind such prohibition.
They (the military) obviously strove to cover up the nature of the
throat wound, by ordering the autopsy docs. to keep their hands off the
throat. Now if this throat wound were actually an exit wound, why would
they stop the docs from exploring te neck area? In other words, WHY
COVER UP A SHOT FROM THE REAR?
David VP
conspiracy' again, laz-ster?
This "unknown" re. the neck-wound tracking MUST = CONSPIRACY (i.e.,
multiple gunmen, front & rear) in your mind, correct?
Why? How?
Plus -- Humes admits he fingered the back wound and that by doing such
a silly thing any further probing of the wound might very well cause a
"false passage" through the body.
Remember that quote?
Humes was just a lying sack of shit when he said that, right?
Or was he a liar? After all, he DID admit to probing the wound with his
finger, did he not? Was he a "liar" in that instance...or a
truth-teller?
Seems that CTers can't make up their mind as to WHAT Dr. Humes was.
He's lying one second; and telling stuff that via a conspiracy &
"cover-up" operation he would have probably been very smart to keep his
yap shut about (e.g., burning stuff in fireplaces and probing wounds
that have no apparent exits and that have "45 to 60-degree" downward
angles to them).
That stuff can't be good for the overall "plot", can it?
So why did he ever say these things?
Either Humes is a liar or he isn't. Which do you want to pick?
Or would you rather just be wishy-washy and have him swing both ways?
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Dear Bud-brain:
>
> I hesitate calling you a bird-brain, because I like birds, and don't
> want to insult them..
Don`t worry, from what I`ve seen of your insulting ability, they
can take you.
> For your information I had six years of medical training and 30 years of
> practice. I at least know enough to ask pertinent questions and give
> reasoned answers. What do you do except barf on your keyboard and then
> hit the send button.
> with your paw?
The inability to creatively insult is an obvious CT trait.
> I haven't seen any response to my questions yet re: prohibition of
> autopsy procedures, and the reasons behind such prohibition.
I don`t remember what the post was about, you removed all the
content.
> They (the military) obviously strove to cover up the nature of the
> throat wound,
Its a good rule of thumb that when a kooks says "obviously" that
what he is saying is a complete flight of fatasy.
> by ordering the autopsy docs. to keep their hands off the
> throat.
Kook approach #4, "This must mean this". Usually coupled with kook
appoach #3, "prove what I say to be wrong or I get to believe stupid
shit.
If I`m not mistaken, you have an autopist who seems to think he was
told by someone he doesn`t remember not to dissect the neck.
> Now if this throat wound were actually an exit wound, why would
> they stop the docs from exploring te neck area?
The question assumes the people giving this instruction had the
motivation of concealing information. If you don`t even know a basic
thing like the person`s name, how do you go about establishing their
motivations? The only way is Kook approach #4, "this must mean this".
Things are done by people, identify the people, and establish why these
people did what you claim they did. You can`t support your claims
except by innuendo. You have thousands of these things occurring, these
things would need the involvement of human beings, these human beings
aren`t fessing up (likely because they don`t exist), so you can never
gather anything approaching trial-type evidence. I think your best bet
is to shut up about the evidence, you don`t have enough of what you
really need, and you have too much of what is worthless in a courtroom.
Anthony Marsh
False assumption in your question. The autopsists were not even aware
that there was a throat wound.
Anthony Marsh
False assumption in your question. The autopsists were not even aware
lazu...@webtv.net
"False assumption in your question. The autopsists were not even aware
that there was a throat wound."
Holy mackerel, Tony, I know you think the autopsists were stupid, but
this is a ridiculous assertion you made! Of course they wereaware of a
wound in the throat, an outsized tracheotomy wound. I wasn't referring
only to the bullet wound. The point I'm making is that the docs were
forbidden to dissect that trach wound by their military superiors, who
were not medical professionals, and thereby being prevented from
removing and weighing the organs of the neck, most importantly, the
thyroid gland, SOP at autopsies, but not this one. Why not? To cover up
something. A shot from the rear? Why cover up a shot from the rear? No,
I think it was to cover up a shot from the front. It's the only thing
that makes sense out of this aspect of the case. By dissecting out the
organs they could determine the direction of the missile, and possibly
even determine the nature of that missile, so HANDS OFF.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> And how does NOT dissecting the neck wound add up to 'automatic
> conspiracy' again, laz-ster?
>
> This "unknown" re. the neck-wound tracking MUST = CONSPIRACY (i.e.,
> multiple gunmen, front & rear) in your mind, correct?
>
> Why? How?
>
> Plus -- Humes admits he fingered the back wound and that by doing such
> a silly thing any further probing of the wound might very well cause a
> "false passage" through the body.
>
> Remember that quote?
>
> Humes was just a lying sack of shit when he said that, right?
Oh, David -- you're not upset are you? I understand your getting your
ass kicked on Simkin's forum, some other JFK assassination related
medical topic, right? Fill us in.... I like everyone else around here
may be surprised at the breadth of your expertise. You a physician,
too?
David VP
Bullshit. The paranoid Jack White types there are fairly easy to
combat. They're not QUITE as kooky as the CT-Kooks here...but with
time, they could manage it I suppose. .....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7448&st=105
Ben Holmes
Of course they were. They lied about it, but they couldn't have missed it. But
you can disregard this, AND ANSWER THE QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF WHY THE
AUTOPSISTS WERE PROHIBITED FROM DISSECTING THE TRACK OF THE WOUND.
But you won't, Tony. You'd rather support the WCR.
Anthony Marsh
Then you'd need to have Sibert and O'Neil also lying.
> But you won't, Tony. You'd rather support the WCR.
>
Pure garbage.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony wrote:
> "False assumption in your question. The autopsists were not even aware
> that there was a throat wound."
>
> Holy mackerel, Tony, I know you think the autopsists were stupid, but
> this is a ridiculous assertion you made! Of course they wereaware of a
> wound in the throat, an outsized tracheotomy wound. I wasn't referring
> only to the bullet wound. The point I'm making is that the docs were
There were also cutdown wounds, but they did not probe those of want to
dissect them or connect those to the back wound. They assumed that the
back wound was shallow with no exit.
> forbidden to dissect that trach wound by their military superiors, who
> were not medical professionals, and thereby being prevented from
> removing and weighing the organs of the neck, most importantly, the
> thyroid gland, SOP at autopsies, but not this one. Why not? To cover up
> something. A shot from the rear? Why cover up a shot from the rear? No,
> I think it was to cover up a shot from the front. It's the only thing
> that makes sense out of this aspect of the case. By dissecting out the
> organs they could determine the direction of the missile, and possibly
> even determine the nature of that missile, so HANDS OFF.
>
Well, I believe there was a shot from the front and I believe there was
a cover-up, but I do not see it as covering up a throat entrance wound.
Ben Holmes
Surely you're aware of Livingstone's comments regarding the FBI and his
conversation with Dr. Humes.
But, interestingly enough, I note that YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>> But you won't, Tony. You'd rather support the WCR.
>>
>
>Pure garbage.
And yet, as I predicted, you won't answer the question...
Ben Holmes
>
>lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Tony wrote:
>> "False assumption in your question. The autopsists were not even aware
>> that there was a throat wound."
>>
>> Holy mackerel, Tony, I know you think the autopsists were stupid, but
>> this is a ridiculous assertion you made! Of course they wereaware of a
>> wound in the throat, an outsized tracheotomy wound. I wasn't referring
>> only to the bullet wound. The point I'm making is that the docs were
>
>There were also cutdown wounds, but they did not probe those of want to
>dissect them
Why bother to lie about the evidence Tony? You know someone is merely going to
correct you...
Commander HUMES - Sir, these were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on
either side of the chest, and I will give them in somewhat greater detail.
These wounds were bilateral, they were situated on the anterior chest wall in
the nipple line, and each were 2 cm. long in the transverse axis. The one on the
right was situated 11 cm. above the nipple the one on the left was situated 11
cm. on the nipple, and the one on the right was 8 cm. above the nipple. Their
intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his
chest.
We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not
enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin. I presume that as they
were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and
they didn't pursue this.
lazu...@webtv.net
"Well, I believe there was a shot from the front and I believe there was
a cover-up, but I do not see it as covering up a throat entrance wound."
We've gone thru this routine before, Tony, but you've never given a
satisfactory answer for why you think they covered up the throat wound
dissection, if in fact the shot had come from the rear! As I have asked
the question many times in the past, WHY COVER UP A SHOT FROM THE REAR?
Charlie Henrickson
That it does. I particularly like the hard-boiled, pseudo-hipster
contruction: "kook shit." Hep, man.
>
>
>>>> So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
>>>> speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
>>>> examination.
>>>
>>> How did Perry know the neck wound was a bullet wound without
>>>dissection?
>>
>>He didn't know, he *thought" it was an exit wound because, Nurse
>>Henchliffe's words, "it was just a little hole in the middle of his
>>neck....about as big around as the end of my little finger....it was
>>just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit wounds I
>>have seen." In Dr Carrico's words, it was a "small penetrating wound
>>of ant. neck".
>
>I presume you meant to use the word "entry" rather than "exit".
Yes, I meant to say "entry". Sorry. Perry was just giving his expert
opinion in the press conference. He wasn't "concluding" anything or
giving a full analysis. Weird that he denied it all in '64. Or not.
There was a lot of pressure put on the Bethesda people and evidently
the Parkland doctors too, many of whom changed their story years later
(to Cyril Wecht, I think).
>
>>>What means did he rule out it being a stab wound, there
>>>aren`t stab wounds that look like bullet wounds? How would Perry know
>>>that the force of the headshot didn`t drive JFK`s head down onto
>>>something that punctured his throat? Lets muddle things completely,
>>>that ought to help us figure out what happened.
>>
>>OK!! You do it quite well. Asking questions that you don't know the
>>answer to is not argument, it's just a diversionary tactic. And don't
>>you wish you could take back the one about something that punctured
>>his throat? Man, that's a good one. Got a little carried away there
>>did you?
>
>Bud likes to play the clown. It's for that reason that I've put him in my
>killfile... along with Tommy Lowry and Grizzlie.
>
>
>>>> And judging from the Jan 27th Executive session transcript - this
>>>> "transit" conclusion may not have come about until *after* January... rather
>>>> than the weekend of the assassination.
>>>
>>> So? It`s never too late to arrive at the correct conclusion.
>
>This means that the prosectors lied about the autopsy report. It means that the
>WC lied about the autopsy report.
>
>Interesting that you'd so happily accept such a set of lies.
Was this addressed to me or to Bud? If to me, what lies did I accept.
Not clear.
Charlie Henrickson
>Bud admitted:
>
>"The medical evidence seems a mess, so I generally disregard it."
>
>Very telling remark. But it doesn't seem to stop you from making wild
>assertions based on speculation rather than on fact, and then usually
>appealling to the authority of unnamed "forensic scientists"? If you
>really studied the medical evidence with an open mind and good
>conscience, you would see the mountain of evidence which contradicts the
>WC's conclusions of a lone gunman. You will also see a massive cover-up
>of the true location and nature of JFK's wounds. This medical evidence
>which you so blithely dismiss points right at conspiracy, and you'd have
>to be blind deaf and dumb to deny it. Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong
>person.
It's worth noting here that Humes had never performed an autopsy
before. Doesn't prove anything, but it's hard to believe that there's
an innocent explanation for such a thing. They could have done the
autopsy at Walter Reed if there were no experienced doctor. And don't
tell me Bethesda was chosen because it was Jackie's wish.
The medical evidence is of the utmost importance. Even the fact that
there is so much suspicion surrounding it is damning. If it were
legitimate, every effort would have been made to disclose it and
maintain the chain of evidence.
Ben Holmes
Anyone that would accept that the Jan 27th Executive session held a different
autopsy report.
Which, of course, I believe. Are you aware of what Spector referenced out of
that "autopsy report" at that time? (Read "Facts that LNT'ers Hate, #10)
What this means is that the WC lied about when the *final* autopsy report was
written. It was most likely written sometime after this Jan 27th session - when
the conspirators knew the best way to cover things over.
Bud
Carefully crafted for optimum effect.
> >>>> So what has come to be known as the SBT is based, fundamentally, on a
> >>>> speculation made after the autopsy was over, and not based on a medical
> >>>> examination.
> >>>
> >>> How did Perry know the neck wound was a bullet wound without
> >>>dissection?
> >>
> >>He didn't know, he *thought" it was an exit wound because, Nurse
> >>Henchliffe's words, "it was just a little hole in the middle of his
> >>neck....about as big around as the end of my little finger....it was
> >>just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit wounds I
> >>have seen." In Dr Carrico's words, it was a "small penetrating wound
> >>of ant. neck".
> >
> >I presume you meant to use the word "entry" rather than "exit".
>
> Yes, I meant to say "entry". Sorry. Perry was just giving his expert
> opinion in the press conference. He wasn't "concluding" anything or
> giving a full analysis.
Wasn`t that the neck wound was a bullet entry wound a conclusion?
>From what did Perry draw the conclusion that this was a bullet wound,
compared to say, a stab wound?
Bud
Charlie Henrickson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:26:35 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Bud admitted:
> >
> >"The medical evidence seems a mess, so I generally disregard it."
> >
> >Very telling remark. But it doesn't seem to stop you from making wild
> >assertions based on speculation rather than on fact, and then usually
> >appealling to the authority of unnamed "forensic scientists"? If you
> >really studied the medical evidence with an open mind and good
> >conscience, you would see the mountain of evidence which contradicts the
> >WC's conclusions of a lone gunman. You will also see a massive cover-up
> >of the true location and nature of JFK's wounds. This medical evidence
> >which you so blithely dismiss points right at conspiracy, and you'd have
> >to be blind deaf and dumb to deny it. Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong
> >person.
> It's worth noting here that Humes had never performed an autopsy
> before. Doesn't prove anything, but it's hard to believe that there's
> an innocent explanation for such a thing. They could have done the
> autopsy at Walter Reed if there were no experienced doctor. And don't
> tell me Bethesda was chosen because it was Jackie's wish.
>
> The medical evidence is of the utmost importance. Even the fact that
> there is so much suspicion surrounding it is damning.
Not when one takes into consideration the people expressing the
suspicion. Only using the kook equation of "unanswered questions"
equals "suspicion" equals "damnation".
Anthony Marsh
I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat. Humes was not
smart enough to know that there was a throat wound. He was so
incompetent that he didn't even consider it. The General forbid him from
dissecting the BACK WOUND.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net
"I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
"Humes was not smart enough to know there was a throat wound."
How do you know this for a fact? Were Boswell ad Finck also stupid and
non-observant?
"He was so incompetent that he didn't even consider it."
Well, what about those reports from autopsy witnesses about probes thru
the neck? Are these repoprts (and now missing photos) all made up stuff?
"The General forbid him from dissecting the BACK WOUND."
Re-read Dr. Finck's testimony. I believe the restrictions also applied
to dissecting out the organs of the neck as well. This is the area being
covered up, not the back wound. Dr. Finck himself admitted to the ARRB
that his biggest regret was that he was not allowed to remove the organs
of the neck (such as the thyroid gland). Go figure.
Ben Holmes
>> Tony wrote in part:
>>
>> "Well, I believe there was a shot from the front and I believe there was
>> a cover-up, but I do not see it as covering up a throat entrance wound."
>>
>> We've gone thru this routine before, Tony, but you've never given a
>> satisfactory answer for why you think they covered up the throat wound
>> dissection, if in fact the shot had come from the rear! As I have asked
>> the question many times in the past, WHY COVER UP A SHOT FROM THE REAR?
>
>
>
>I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat.
Of course you don't. It would be extremely difficult to locate a LNT'er who
did.
>Humes was not smart enough to know that there was a throat wound.
"Smart" doesn't come into the equation at all. You might as well say that he
wasn't wearing a red shirt that day...
He knew that there was a bullet wound there - he was told by Livingstone. He
probably also heard via news broadcasts, as well as Burkley, or others who knew.
Clearly he was smart enough to fool you all these years later...
>He was so incompetent that he didn't even consider it.
A statement that you don't have any evidence of. Believing that the results of
military orders and the coverup can be laid at the feet of "incompetent"
prosectors is a silly way to support the WCR.
>The General forbid him from dissecting the BACK WOUND.
A statement that is simply untrue. Here's the relevant testimony:
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.
#1 - You can't possibly know if it was a General, Admiral, or some other
officer. Finck didn't know.
#2 - Confusing the "BACK WOUND" with the "track of the bullet wound" is a rather
basic error of an ignorant researcher.
So Tony... why do you bother to misrepresent the evidence when you *know* that
there are people on this forum that will correct your lies?
Anthony Marsh
> Tony wrote:
>
> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
>
> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
>
I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
Fracture transverse process of T-1. Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears
of the right side of the tracheal rings. All adds up to transit. Back to
front.
> "Humes was not smart enough to know there was a throat wound."
>
> How do you know this for a fact? Were Boswell ad Finck also stupid and
> non-observant?
>
Yes.
> "He was so incompetent that he didn't even consider it."
>
> Well, what about those reports from autopsy witnesses about probes thru
> the neck? Are these repoprts (and now missing photos) all made up stuff?
>
There are no reports of probes through the neck.
> "The General forbid him from dissecting the BACK WOUND."
>
> Re-read Dr. Finck's testimony. I believe the restrictions also applied
> to dissecting out the organs of the neck as well. This is the area being
> covered up, not the back wound. Dr. Finck himself admitted to the ARRB
> that his biggest regret was that he was not allowed to remove the organs
> of the neck (such as the thyroid gland). Go figure.
>
Could the thyroid be stuck by a passing bullet?
Could President Kennedy's medical history be confirmed by the condition
of the thyroid gland?
lazu...@webtv.net
"Fractured transverse process of T-1."
Could have been an old football, or war injury.
Or a shot from the front.
"Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears of the right side of the tracheal
rings. "
How does this evidence rule out a frontal shot?
"All adds up to transit. Back to front."
No it doesn't. In your mind, yes, but I think the question is definitely
open. A frontal shot could have produced all the damage you cite.
Incidentally,what happened to the full cervical Xray which, according to
Jerrol Custer, showed small fragments near C3-5, which just happens to
be in line with a frontal throat shot? If this is true, what happens to
your back to front theory? OTOH, it worsk just fine for a frontal shot
theory.
"There are no reports of probes thru the neck."
Maybe you are unaware of them, but reports and photos (now missing, see
Saundra Spencer) do exist showing probes. I'll try to get the exact
cites, unless someone beats me to it.
"Could the thyroid be struck by a passing bullet?"
It most certainly could. The thyroid gland wraps around the trachea from
the rear. The right wing of the thyroid would especially be vulnerable
to a shot grazing the right side of the trachea.
"Could President Kennedy's medical history be confirmed by the condition
of the thyroid gland?"
Not his entire hstory, of course not. Would apply only if he had a
thyroid condition, which apparently, he did not. Furthermore, as you
know, the thyroid has nothng to do with Addison's, that condition being
attributed to failing adrenal glands, located above the kidneys, far
from the neck. So RFK didn't deliver the "hands off" the neck order, it
was the military, and I believe that it was to cover-up a frontal shot.
Ben Holmes
>
>lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Tony wrote:
>>
>> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
>>
>> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
>>
>
>I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
>Fracture transverse process of T-1.
Strangely enough, never seen until the HSCA, as I recall.
And too high for the *original* reports of the bullet entry location.
>Bruised tip of the right lung.
The only photograph of this disappeared.
>Tears of the right side of the tracheal rings.
A bullet certainly caused it. But this by itself certainly doens't show
direction. A minor fact to a WC supporter such as Tony, however...
>All adds up to transit.
No, it doesn't.
>Back to front.
Again, sheer speculation. Nothing you've presented shows direction.
>> "Humes was not smart enough to know there was a throat wound."
>>
>> How do you know this for a fact? Were Boswell ad Finck also stupid and
>> non-observant?
>
>Yes.
Yep... in Tony's world, everyone is "stupid".
And yet, he can't ever seem to provide any proof of this...
>> "He was so incompetent that he didn't even consider it."
>>
>> Well, what about those reports from autopsy witnesses about probes thru
>> the neck? Are these repoprts (and now missing photos) all made up stuff?
>
>There are no reports of probes through the neck.
Actually, there is. It's just not very persuasive. But that's no excuse to
deny and lie about it. Tony knows this, but simply lies about it. For lurkers,
research the "CBS Memo", Jim Snyder.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>
>"Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>
>Could have been an old football, or war injury.
>Or a shot from the front.
Or it could simply be another example of doctored X-rays. This "fracture" was
never seen by the prosectors, or by the Clark Panel.
It only was seen for the first time by the HSCA. Tony earlier denied and lied
about this - but couldn't supply any citations.
In any case, T-1 is just a tad too high for a bullet that entered around T-4 to
T-3... Tony has much in common with the WC, who artificially raised the back
wound.
>"Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears of the right side of the tracheal
>rings. "
>
>How does this evidence rule out a frontal shot?
Not only does it *NOT*, but it also is unproven. The only "proof" of this
disappeared while under government control.
>"All adds up to transit. Back to front."
>
>No it doesn't. In your mind, yes, but I think the question is definitely
>open. A frontal shot could have produced all the damage you cite.
>Incidentally,what happened to the full cervical Xray which, according to
>Jerrol Custer, showed small fragments near C3-5, which just happens to
>be in line with a frontal throat shot? If this is true, what happens to
>your back to front theory? OTOH, it worsk just fine for a frontal shot
>theory.
>
>
>
>"There are no reports of probes thru the neck."
>
>Maybe you are unaware of them, but reports and photos (now missing, see
>Saundra Spencer) do exist showing probes. I'll try to get the exact
>cites, unless someone beats me to it.
No, Tony isn't unaware... he's merely a liar. He somehow keeps thinking that
people won't correct his misrepresentations and lies about the evidence.
I think the evidence for any probes in the *neck* are weak - and on the whole I
discount them... but I don't *DENY* that they exist - as Tony does.
lazu...@webtv.net
"Robert Karnei, M.D. a patholgy resident at Bethesda (and later chief at
the AFIP) would have performed the autopsy, had it been a routine one.
He recalls repeated attempts by Finck to probe the wound in the right
shoulder (back).One of his certain memories is that photographs were
taken of the probe in the wound."
and this item:
In a (formerly) suppressed HSCA interview with Robert Knudsen, former
White House photographer; "Repeatedly resisting pressure to back down,
Knudsen insisted that in 1963 he saw at least one image not in the
inventory he was shown in1978; an image with a metal probe (or probes)
through JFK's body that entered the back at a lower position than it
exited through the throat wound.'
"Knudson as one of several witnesses who recalled probes in the body
(including several witnesses who saw them in photographs) Such probes
were also described in a CBS memorandum (10 Jan, 1967) from Robert
Richter to Les Midgely, in which a conversation with Humes himself was
recalled by Jim Snyder of the CBS Bureau in Wash. D.C......Humes implied
that one Xray, apparently with a probe in it, would answer many
questions about the (supposed) bullet trajectory from the back to the
throat."
Another tidbit:
"Joe O'Donnell, USIA photographer " recalled an image of JFK lying on
his back, wit a metal probe emerging from his right side (?!)
The above is all from MIDP., chapters by Mantik.
So Tony, you can't in good faith deny the existence of REPORTS, whether
they be true or not. But it is difficult to call Dr. Karnei a liar or a
nincompoop, eh what?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <8uSdnYf0k-GnU17Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >
> >lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> Tony wrote:
> >>
> >> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
> >>
> >> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
> >>
> >
> >I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
> >Fracture transverse process of T-1.
>
>
> Strangely enough, never seen until the HSCA, as I recall.
>
> And too high for the *original* reports of the bullet entry location.
>
>
> >Bruised tip of the right lung.
>
>
> The only photograph of this disappeared.
>
>
> >Tears of the right side of the tracheal rings.
>
> A bullet certainly caused it. But this by itself certainly doens't show
> direction. A minor fact to a WC supporter such as Tony, however...
>
>
> >All adds up to transit.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>
> >Back to front.
>
>
> Again, sheer speculation. Nothing you've presented shows direction.
Notice Ben`s substitution of Tony`s "transit" with "direction"?
His dishonesty knows no bounds.
> >> "Humes was not smart enough to know there was a throat wound."
> >>
> >> How do you know this for a fact? Were Boswell ad Finck also stupid and
> >> non-observant?
> >
> >Yes.
>
>
> Yep... in Tony's world, everyone is "stupid".
>
>
> And yet, he can't ever seem to provide any proof of this...
He could offer you in support of the idea.
lazu...@webtv.net
Occipital-along with the Parkland Doctors' identifying the throat wound
of entrance.This Not only separates the lone nutters,, or those
likeminded Cter's who engage in the most inane verbal gymnastics to deny
OBVIOUS DECEPTION in the medical evidence.
Anthony Marsh
You are confused. YOUR claim was about probes inserted in the throat
wound. All you have done is cite the probes inserted in the back wound.
The had no reason to insert probes in the throat wound any more than
they would insert them into the cutdowns.
lazu...@webtv.net
accounts of probes thru the body, just in case someone denied their
existence. If you want to quibble over there being "no probes thru the
neck', go ahead, that doesn't change the essence of my last post.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <17220-44C...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazu...@webtv.net says...
>> Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>>
>> "Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>>
>> Could have been an old football, or war injury.
>> Or a shot from the front.
>
>
> Or it could simply be another example of doctored X-rays. This "fracture" was
> never seen by the prosectors, or by the Clark Panel.
>
> It only was seen for the first time by the HSCA. Tony earlier denied and lied
> about this - but couldn't supply any citations.
>
Again, more slander when you are losing your case.
I didn't lie about anything.
> In any case, T-1 is just a tad too high for a bullet that entered around T-4 to
> T-3... Tony has much in common with the WC, who artificially raised the back
> wound.
>
>
>
T-3 or T-4 are too low. Such a bullet would hit the manubrium.
>> "Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears of the right side of the tracheal
>> rings. "
>>
>> How does this evidence rule out a frontal shot?
>
>
> Not only does it *NOT*, but it also is unproven. The only "proof" of this
> disappeared while under government control.
>
>
>> "All adds up to transit. Back to front."
>>
>> No it doesn't. In your mind, yes, but I think the question is definitely
>> open. A frontal shot could have produced all the damage you cite.
No. Wrong angles.
>> Incidentally,what happened to the full cervical Xray which, according to
>> Jerrol Custer, showed small fragments near C3-5, which just happens to
>> be in line with a frontal throat shot? If this is true, what happens to
>> your back to front theory? OTOH, it worsk just fine for a frontal shot
>> theory.
>>
>>
>>
>> "There are no reports of probes thru the neck."
>>
>> Maybe you are unaware of them, but reports and photos (now missing, see
>> Saundra Spencer) do exist showing probes. I'll try to get the exact
>> cites, unless someone beats me to it.
>
>
> No, Tony isn't unaware... he's merely a liar. He somehow keeps thinking that
> people won't correct his misrepresentations and lies about the evidence.
>
> I think the evidence for any probes in the *neck* are weak - and on the whole I
> discount them... but I don't *DENY* that they exist - as Tony does.
>
I also deny that aliens were involved.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <8uSdnYf0k-GnU17Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>> Tony wrote:
>>>
>>> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
>>>
>>> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
>>>
>> I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
>> Fracture transverse process of T-1.
>
>
> Strangely enough, never seen until the HSCA, as I recall.
>
So what? Still not seen by those who want to believe in wacky theories.
> And too high for the *original* reports of the bullet entry location.
>
>
>> Bruised tip of the right lung.
>
>
> The only photograph of this disappeared.
>
I am not talking about the photograph.
>
>> Tears of the right side of the tracheal rings.
>
> A bullet certainly caused it. But this by itself certainly doens't show
> direction. A minor fact to a WC supporter such as Tony, however...
>
It definitely does show the bullet on the right side, yet exiting
slightly to the left of the midline.
>
>> All adds up to transit.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>
>> Back to front.
>
>
> Again, sheer speculation. Nothing you've presented shows direction.
>
>
>>> "Humes was not smart enough to know there was a throat wound."
>>>
>>> How do you know this for a fact? Were Boswell ad Finck also stupid and
>>> non-observant?
>> Yes.
>
>
> Yep... in Tony's world, everyone is "stupid".
>
>
> And yet, he can't ever seem to provide any proof of this...
>
>
>
>>> "He was so incompetent that he didn't even consider it."
>>>
>>> Well, what about those reports from autopsy witnesses about probes thru
>>> the neck? Are these repoprts (and now missing photos) all made up stuff?
>> There are no reports of probes through the neck.
>
>
> Actually, there is. It's just not very persuasive. But that's no excuse to
> deny and lie about it. Tony knows this, but simply lies about it. For lurkers,
> research the "CBS Memo", Jim Snyder.
>
No, and you don't post anything, because you don't have anything.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>
> "Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>
> Could have been an old football, or war injury.
> Or a shot from the front.
>
No, not seen on previous X-rays.
> "Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears of the right side of the tracheal
> rings. "
>
> How does this evidence rule out a frontal shot?
>
The angles.
> "All adds up to transit. Back to front."
>
> No it doesn't. In your mind, yes, but I think the question is definitely
> open. A frontal shot could have produced all the damage you cite.
> Incidentally,what happened to the full cervical Xray which, according to
> Jerrol Custer, showed small fragments near C3-5, which just happens to
> be in line with a frontal throat shot? If this is true, what happens to
> your back to front theory? OTOH, it worsk just fine for a frontal shot
> theory.
>
Which fragments are in line with C3-5?
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <17220-44C...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net>,
>> lazu...@webtv.net says...
>>> Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>>>
>>> "Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>>>
>>> Could have been an old football, or war injury.
>>> Or a shot from the front.
>>
>>
>>Or it could simply be another example of doctored X-rays. This "fracture" was
>> never seen by the prosectors, or by the Clark Panel.
>>
>>It only was seen for the first time by the HSCA. Tony earlier denied and lied
>> about this - but couldn't supply any citations.
>>
>
>Again, more slander when you are losing your case.
>I didn't lie about anything.
Of course you did, Tony. It's there for anyone to Google.
>>In any case, T-1 is just a tad too high for a bullet that entered around T-4 to
>> T-3... Tony has much in common with the WC, who artificially raised the back
>> wound.
>
>T-3 or T-4 are too low. Such a bullet would hit the manubrium.
Too bad that the best evidence is *FOR* a T3/T4 location... isn't it, Tony?
>>> "Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears of the right side of the tracheal
>>> rings. "
>>>
>>> How does this evidence rule out a frontal shot?
>>
>>
>> Not only does it *NOT*, but it also is unproven. The only "proof" of this
>> disappeared while under government control.
>>
>>
>>> "All adds up to transit. Back to front."
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. In your mind, yes, but I think the question is definitely
>>> open. A frontal shot could have produced all the damage you cite.
>
>No. Wrong angles.
Liar, aren't you, Tony? By all means, list the evidence you cite, and show how
the "angles" make any difference whatsoever.
Or continue to duck and evade...
>>> Incidentally,what happened to the full cervical Xray which, according to
>>> Jerrol Custer, showed small fragments near C3-5, which just happens to
>>> be in line with a frontal throat shot? If this is true, what happens to
>>> your back to front theory? OTOH, it worsk just fine for a frontal shot
>>> theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "There are no reports of probes thru the neck."
>>>
>>> Maybe you are unaware of them, but reports and photos (now missing, see
>>> Saundra Spencer) do exist showing probes. I'll try to get the exact
>>> cites, unless someone beats me to it.
>>
>>
>> No, Tony isn't unaware... he's merely a liar. He somehow keeps thinking that
>> people won't correct his misrepresentations and lies about the evidence.
>>
>> I think the evidence for any probes in the *neck* are weak - and on the
>> whole I discount them... but I don't *DENY* that they exist - as Tony does.
>
>I also deny that aliens were involved.
Who cares what a liar says?
Ben Holmes
>
>lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>>
>> "Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>>
>> Could have been an old football, or war injury.
>> Or a shot from the front.
>>
>
>No, not seen on previous X-rays.
Yep... not seen during the autopsy, and not seen during the Clark Panel.
Can you admit this, Tony?
>> "Bruised tip of the right lung. Tears of the right side of the tracheal
>> rings. "
>>
>> How does this evidence rule out a frontal shot?
>>
>
>The angles.
Blue haired dogs in Alaska...
>> "All adds up to transit. Back to front."
>>
>> No it doesn't. In your mind, yes, but I think the question is definitely
>> open. A frontal shot could have produced all the damage you cite.
>> Incidentally,what happened to the full cervical Xray which, according to
>> Jerrol Custer, showed small fragments near C3-5, which just happens to
>> be in line with a frontal throat shot? If this is true, what happens to
>> your back to front theory? OTOH, it worsk just fine for a frontal shot
>> theory.
>>
>
>Which fragments are in line with C3-5?
Illiterate, aren't you, Tony?
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <8uSdnYf0k-GnU17Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>> Tony wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
>>>>
>>>> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
>>>>
>>> I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
>>> Fracture transverse process of T-1.
>>
>>
>> Strangely enough, never seen until the HSCA, as I recall.
>>
>
>So what?
You denied this earlier... I see that you've gotten up to speed now...
>Still not seen by those who want to believe in wacky theories.
Wacky theories??? How about Dr. Humes burning papers 24 hours earlier than all
the testimony indicates?
>> And too high for the *original* reports of the bullet entry location.
>>
>>
>>> Bruised tip of the right lung.
>>
>>
>> The only photograph of this disappeared.
>
>I am not talking about the photograph.
Who cares what you talk about, Tony? If you wish to mention a topic, you're
going to have to live with the fact that others will mention other relevant
points on the topic.
Care to offer a hypothesis of why this photo disappeared?
>>> Tears of the right side of the tracheal rings.
>>
>> A bullet certainly caused it. But this by itself certainly doens't show
>> direction. A minor fact to a WC supporter such as Tony, however...
>>
>
>It definitely does show the bullet on the right side,
Yep... obvious even to a rock...
>yet exiting slightly to the left of the midline.
Nope. Nothing about the side of the trachea injured shows direction of the
bullet.
>>> All adds up to transit.
>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>> Back to front.
>>
>>
>> Again, sheer speculation. Nothing you've presented shows direction.
>>
>>
>>>> "Humes was not smart enough to know there was a throat wound."
>>>>
>>>> How do you know this for a fact? Were Boswell ad Finck also stupid and
>>>> non-observant?
>>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> Yep... in Tony's world, everyone is "stupid".
>>
>>
>> And yet, he can't ever seem to provide any proof of this...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "He was so incompetent that he didn't even consider it."
>>>>
>>>> Well, what about those reports from autopsy witnesses about probes thru
>>>> the neck? Are these repoprts (and now missing photos) all made up stuff?
>>> There are no reports of probes through the neck.
>>
>>
>> Actually, there is. It's just not very persuasive. But that's no excuse to
>>deny and lie about it. Tony knows this, but simply lies about it. For lurkers,
>> research the "CBS Memo", Jim Snyder.
>>
>
>No, and you don't post anything, because you don't have anything.
See!?? Tony is willing to lie blatantly even when the evidence is right in
front of him.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <ItCdnb4EaLl22ljZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <8uSdnYf0k-GnU17Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>> Tony wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
>>>>>
>>>>> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
>>>>>
>>>> I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
>>>> Fracture transverse process of T-1.
>>>
>>> Strangely enough, never seen until the HSCA, as I recall.
>>>
>> So what?
>
> You denied this earlier... I see that you've gotten up to speed now...
>
Denied what? You are lying.
>
>> Still not seen by those who want to believe in wacky theories.
>
>
> Wacky theories??? How about Dr. Humes burning papers 24 hours earlier than all
> the testimony indicates?
>
Two separate burn parties.
>
>
>>> And too high for the *original* reports of the bullet entry location.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bruised tip of the right lung.
>>>
>>> The only photograph of this disappeared.
>> I am not talking about the photograph.
>
>
> Who cares what you talk about, Tony? If you wish to mention a topic, you're
> going to have to live with the fact that others will mention other relevant
> points on the topic.
>
> Care to offer a hypothesis of why this photo disappeared?
>
>
What photo? Based on your hearsay?
>
>>>> Tears of the right side of the tracheal rings.
>>> A bullet certainly caused it. But this by itself certainly doens't show
>>> direction. A minor fact to a WC supporter such as Tony, however...
>>>
>> It definitely does show the bullet on the right side,
>
> Yep... obvious even to a rock...
>
>> yet exiting slightly to the left of the midline.
>
> Nope. Nothing about the side of the trachea injured shows direction of the
> bullet.
>
The exit in the front of the throat was just slightly to the left of the
midline. This shows a right to left path.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <ItCdnbkEaLnv1VjZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>> Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>>>
>>> "Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>>>
>>> Could have been an old football, or war injury.
>>> Or a shot from the front.
>>>
>> No, not seen on previous X-rays.
>
>
> Yep... not seen during the autopsy, and not seen during the Clark Panel.
>
> Can you admit this, Tony?
>
I can admit that the autopsy doctors were so incompetent that they could
not see the fracture of T-1.
Anthony Marsh
Now, when you are caught lying, you change the argument. You originally
did not say accounts of probes thru the body. You said probes through
the neck. The probes were put into the back.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <ItCdnb4EaLl22ljZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <8uSdnYf0k-GnU17Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>> Tony wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I don't think there was an entry wound in the throat."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this is your position, but you've never explained why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've only explained it about 1,000 times.
>>>>> Fracture transverse process of T-1.
>>>>
>>>> Strangely enough, never seen until the HSCA, as I recall.
>>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> You denied this earlier... I see that you've gotten up to speed now...
>>
>
>Denied what? You are lying.
Amusing that you're calling me a liar for something you don't even understand...
>>> Still not seen by those who want to believe in wacky theories.
>>
>>
>>Wacky theories??? How about Dr. Humes burning papers 24 hours earlier than all
>> the testimony indicates?
>>
>
>Two separate burn parties.
Cite ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for your assertion...
You won't, of course...
>>>> And too high for the *original* reports of the bullet entry location.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bruised tip of the right lung.
>>>>
>>>> The only photograph of this disappeared.
>>> I am not talking about the photograph.
>>
>>
>>Who cares what you talk about, Tony? If you wish to mention a topic, you're
>> going to have to live with the fact that others will mention other relevant
>> points on the topic.
>>
>> Care to offer a hypothesis of why this photo disappeared?
>>
>>
>
>What photo? Based on your hearsay?
Are you actually *denying* that the photo disappeared, Tony???
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <ItCdnbkEaLnv1VjZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>> Tony explain his reasons for back to front transit only:
>>>>
>>>> "Fractured transverse process of T-1."
>>>>
>>>> Could have been an old football, or war injury.
>>>> Or a shot from the front.
>>>>
>>> No, not seen on previous X-rays.
>>
>>
>> Yep... not seen during the autopsy, and not seen during the Clark Panel.
>>
>> Can you admit this, Tony?
>>
>
>I can admit that the autopsy doctors were so incompetent that they could
>not see the fracture of T-1.
You also indict the Clark Panel. What medical expertise can you offer for your
assertions?
And what proof can you offer for the incompetence of the three prosectors?
Ben Holmes
And yet, when the citation that proves Tony a liar is produced... he merely
denies it exists...
Anthony Marsh
I never denied that probes were used. I had discussed this before. But
they were put into the back wound, not the neck wound.
Ben Holmes
"There are no reports of probes through the neck."
Are you going to admit that this is a lie, Tony? There *were* reports, I've
alluded to them.