On May 27, 11:55Â am, John Canal <
John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <
050253c9-ae29-46e8-80d6-bf03c05f7...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
There were 3 morticians that did the work on the body. Robinson saw
another team member do the job on the BOH and how it was done. And he
not only saw the BOH then, but he witnessed the autopsy from a good
seat in the gallery. He saw and described the BOH as did over 40
people, including a large portion of the medically trained Parkland
personnel.
> >Robinson stated
> >that a piece of rubber had to be used to patch the hole in the BOH and the
> >rubber patch was only slightly larger than the hole in the head, and the
> >rubber patch was the size of a "large orange" which he demonstrated by
> >making a circle with his index fingers and thumbs of both hands.
>
> >
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D7...
> >PageId=3D4
>
> Here's the probem for your scenario. By the time the body was turned over
> to the morticians, the entire BOH skull on the right side was out. All of
> that skull which was fragmented had been removed to facilitate the removal
> of the brain (again, done early in the evening).
>
Nope. Won't do. Robinson also witnessed the autopsists break into
the skull and damage the top od the skull too. The point that he
marked out as being a hole in the BOH is the same as the many people
that saw that large hole from the Parkland personnel:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3930.0
Go down a bit more than halfway to see the collage of medically
trained personnel indicating the large hole in the BOH. We can add to
that Clint Hill, who saw the damage to the BOH first from immediately
over the president on the limo. There were at least 12 people that
corroborate each other as to the large hole in the BOH of JFK before
the body ever got near Bethesda, and many from Bethesda that also saw
it. Some when the body was unwrapped and put on the table. There is
no way to escape it. The small entry wound was present in the
forehead/temple in the hairline, and the large exit wound was at the
BOH. As Dr. Crenshaw said, It was a frontal shot that killed him.
> > Â He also drew on a picture of a skull:
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/h...
> >88_0003a.htm
> > Â On the image above, look carefully at the BOH for the crescent he
> >drew in black pen.
>
> The problem again is that by the time the body was turned over to the
> morticians the head was in a totally different state than what it was when
> the body was first received.
>
You saw the hole as drawn by Tom Robinson at the BOH. Are you
saying that the autopsists damaged the BOH more than it was when it
left Parkland and during the time at Bethesda? Tom Robinson speaks of
the autopsists doing the damage to the TOP of the head, not the back.
I know of NO one that mentions any work done on the BOH by the autopsy
team.
> > Â Many people have seen the large hole in the BOH of JFK.
>
> There's no denying that there was a hole (besides the small entry) in the
> BOH....it's just the size is debateable, noting that the PH doc who had
> the best look at it said it was only the size of a quarter.
>
> Do you think he lied?
>
I have not seen that said anywhere by a doctor at Parkland. Can you
point me to it? I've seen many at Parkland describe the hole as large
at over 2 inches in diameter. Here are some of the trained doctors
and nurses commenting on the size of the hole. Many say that brain
matter was exuding from the hole. If the hole was the size of a
bullet, that wouldn't be seen, the hole would be too small for that to
happen as described. If you're able to find one doctor that said such
a thing, then compare it with the many that said otherwise.
> Why?
>
> >You can talk
> >all you like about a bullet hole near the large wound, (some say right on
> >the periphery) but there is no doubt based on the large number of
> >witnesses to the large hole that it was there.
>
> Duh, there was a hole larger than the entry, but the size is debateable.
>
Nope. Many have described it as a LARGE hole. Far more than you
can find that say otherwise.
> So you think the X-rays were faked? All of them?
>
I think at the least that some of them were odd. They show bone
missing from the right side of the skull in the forehead area. If the
photos were taken of the head at that time, the whole right front of
the head would cave in from the lack of bone to support the skin.
Doctors much more knowledgeable than me say the X-rays were wrong, and
it fits with so much other evidence that I choose to take their word.
http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf
> >That alone makes the
> >autopsy suspect, since they failed to report that, while other people at
> >the autopsy DID see the hole.
>
> You need to do more readng. The autopsists agreed there was a BOH hole,
> besides the entry.
>
The 3 autopsists were all military and subject to military orders,
making what they said suspect. As well, 2 of them had no real
experience in what they were doing, and they botched the procedures
badly based on what other experienced prosectors have said. The X-
rays were reviewed by Mantik who was not under orders.
> >One of those was Paul O'Connor, a morgue
> >assistant who placed the body on the table. Â He was pictured with all the
> >Parkland trained medical personnel that made it clear they had also seen
> >the hole:
>
> Yes, for the seemingy 1000th time, there was a BOH hole besides the entry.
>
Yes, but the size wasn't in doubt based on the sheer number of
medically trained people that said it was a "large" hole. If there
were even one trained person that said the hole was as small as a
quarter, quote him/her now please.
The X-rays were proven to be faked, so why do you depend on them?
Pat of the fakery was noted to be the rear of the skull where much of
it was 'whited' out to make it look like the skull was there, when a
large chunk was missing as per the witnesses from before the autopsy.
If you can find any work being done on the BOH that wound enlarge the
hole there, please quote it here.
> >> >and
> >> >some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
> >> >hairline, then they know what happened.
>
> >> Gee move your temple entry over a few inches and Bingo, you've got Marsh'=
> >s
> >> entry.
>
> > Â I spent days poking at March to get his placement of his temple/
> >forehead small wound. Â The reason I use the slash ('/') is to allow my and
> >his words to both be used to describe the position because after getting
> >him to describe what he was talking about, I determined that we were
> >speaking of the same small bullet sized wound in the temple/forehead.
> >The problem arose because temple and forehead overlap one another.
>
> Huh? Where Marsh palces the entry is far from the temple.
>
Please say where you think Marsh placed his small bullet hole. You
see, there can't be 2 small holes in that area can there? I'm not
talking about over the right ear where Robinson puts a triangular hole
but forward of that area, more on the front of the head.
> >> In any case, did any of the autopsists see such an entry in his temple?
>
> >> Of course not.
>
> > Â If others see it and the autopsists can't see it, why do you assume
> >they weren't ordered to make sure that only shots from high and behind
> >were discussed? Â There were so many other things wrong with the goings- on
> >at the autopsy that anyone would be leery of ANY findings that came out of
> >it. Â A short probe was put into the back wound, and only went an inch or
> >two. Â One of the assistants saw the probe pushing at the pleura in front,
> >but not going through. Â That means that the bullet that made that hole was
> >first, missing, and second, was an entry wound, and third, that the throat
> >wound was also an entry, since it couldn't be the exit of the back wound.
>
> > Â Dennis David - Bethesda morgue assistant, stated that he was shown
> >photos of the autopsy by Lt. Cmdr. Pitzer and he saw the "gaping wound" in
> >the BOH and that the photos made it clear to him that the president was
> >hit from the front as well as the back.
>
> So he was a wound ballistics expert? How did he know that the BOH wound
> wasn't caused by the bullet fired from behind?
>
We must use our common sense in such cases, and a 'ballistics
expert' isn't necessary to determine which is the entry and which is
the exit when one is 2 inches and more across, and the other is bullet
sized.
> You do realize that the rear brain damage was minimal compared to the
> damage in the front, right?
>
I realize nothing of the kind. Are you relying on the Ida Dox
drawings, which are not drawn from the body, but from the photos that
were faked? The damage to the brain can be read from the testimony of
Tom Robinson, who said that a large percentage of it was gone "in the
back" from the "medulla" and the portion that was missing was the size
of a "closed fist". He described the condition of the brain in that
area as having the consistency of "soup".
> IOW the bullet started to tumble and then fragmented causing the mojor
> damage in the front of the brain.
>
That's a hope and a guess like you have said the CTs would try to
put together when they get their backs to a wall.
> Unless you think there were two brains?
>
> Do you?
>
Nope. But there were 2 autopsies, one of which was spent mostly on
probing and modifying the brain and skull. At that one most of the
personnel were sent out of the room. That's in their statements that
they were asked to leave the room!!
> My oh my, in addition to any fragments that would have had to have been
> confiscated in back of JFK (if a bullet exited his BOH), you have x-rays
> being forged and the brain switched...evidently.
>
> Pretty large undertaking for the conspirators, no?
>
Nope, and I didn't say anything about there being 2 brains, which I
don't believe. I also didn't say anything about looking for a
fragment that came out the BOH. And I didn't say anything about
brains being switched. There was a bullet that landed near the edge
of Elm street in the grass at the time of the shots that may be
involved, but it conveniently disappeared and couldn't be found. It
was in the best position and was said to be a .45 bullet, but that's
not necessarily the bullet that made the entry and exit in the skull
of JFK, only a possibility.
> >He could also see a "round or
> >oval wound" 1/4 to 3/8ths of an inch in diameter in the right front
> >temporal area just below the hairline which he immediately interpreted as
> >an entry wound.
>
> Oh, so he was a wound-ballistics expert?
>
Don't be silly. Anyone can assume a wound is a bullet hole, doesn't
make them right or wrong, it's just something people will do. You
don't need an expert to know there was a hole in the head...:)
> Again, the skull was fractured and fragmented and as oon as the scalp was
> reflected early, the head was in a totally different state from when it
> was when it first arrived at the morgue.
>
That I agree with. Tom Robinson said the doctors made damage to the
TOP of the head of JFK whole looking for a bullet or fragments of
one. They also used a saw to cut part of the skull at the forehead.
> >
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D7...
> >PageId=3D4
>
> > Â James Jenkins - morgue assistant - saw the probe being used to no
> >avail in the back wound:
> >
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3...
> >PageId=3D5
> >> Did the autopsists report seeing a pathway through the brain consistent
> >> with a bullet entering in his temple and exiting the BOH?
>
> >> Of course not.
>
> > Â They dug around in the head and brain and picked out a few bullet
> >fragments, but no one did the proper work of sectioning or probing the
> >brain to determine the path.
>
> So they lied or guessed when they said the only complete pathway through
> the brain extended from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the
> frontal lobe?
>
If they chose that direction, they were wrong. Whether they were
lying at that point, I don't know.
> They saidthat pathway went just above the thalamus...how did they know
> that unless they sectioned the brain?
>
If you assume where the bullet went in and where it came out, then
you can assume what it passed in the head as it made its way through.
You don't need to section the brain to do that. And if you assume a
path, then it can go in either direction as well, forward or back.
> Sure they said they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain, but dont you think
> it's possible they were just being sensitive to the family b saying that?
>
I think the excuse for not sectioning the brain was the family
interest, but I'm sure they didn't want that done. It might unveil
more than they wanted to see.
> Again how could they have known that the pathway passed just above the
> thalamus without sectioning the brain?
>
Easy. you know where you think the bullet started into the head and
where you think it came out, and you can pretty much decide what it
goes past on its way. Did they say HOW CLOSE it came to the
thalamus? If not, then it could be an inch or a foot.
> >They managed to damage the skull at the top
> >of the head with their hunting around in there. Â This was seen by Tom
> >Robinson and mentioned in his ARRB testimony.
>
> So you do think they lied about the pathway through the brain?
>
I think they guessed that it was what they were ordered to find. The
proof of the large BOH wound and the tiny entry wound in the forehead/
temple make it clear which way the bullet traveled.
> >> So were the autopsists actually just janitors or in on a huge cover-up?
>
No, they were ordered to carry it off themselves, or at least 2 of
them were. Finke I'm not so sure of. I think Humes and Boswell were
busy making it look like a rear sniper for him too.
> > Â If you're asking for an opinion, they were under orders as to what
> >they should find and they followed those orders.
>
> OIC, so we can throw out the autopsy?
>
No, but it was still a lot of fakery. Some beforehand, some during,
and some after. One gain was that the short probe that was used to
look into the back wound showed it to be a shallow wound ending only
an inch or two in. That alone said volumes. If the back wound was an
entry and did NOT go through the body, then the throat was also and
entry wound and was from the front.
> Now your theory is starting to fit.
>
> Throw out the autopsy, plant and remove fragments, forger X-rays, forge
> brain photos,.......what else?
>
I didn't agree to throw out the autopsy, you're answering your own
points. I also didn't say plant fragments (if you mean in the body).
I wasn't the one that had the background to look at the X-rays and
discredit them. Why is it you can't accept an expert's opinion?
> >> Do you understand how wacky your wacky theory really is?
>
Nope. Only the things YOU say are in the theory. Remember, I did
NOT say most of those things, YOU did. You have just invalidated your
own theory.
> > Â Not when I'm presenting backup to what I'm saying. Â Then it's not
> >theory. Â Of course you have to look at the proof. Â But you might avoid
> >looking at those links and so not gain the benefit of my information.
> >To me, the wacky theories were the 'lone nut' and the 'Single Bullet'
> >theories.
>
> You cherry-pick the record to find things that seem to fit your wacky
> theory.
>
No, I believe that certain people, especially the FBI, cherry picked
the facts to present to the WC. Many witnesses complained of their
efforts to have witnesses say what they wanted. I found evidence that
also makes it clear that the CE399 'magic' bullet was a fake and was
replaced while in the hands of the FBI, it was there for anyone to
see. All the evidence that everyone else saw is included with my
view, just that some of it was manipulated to fool the suckers, and it
worked. At least 30% of the public thinks there was only a 'lone nut'
assassin as per the wacky theories of the WC.
> >> >A bullet came from the front and
> >> >through the head and exploded out the back.
>
> >> In your dreams and very wild imagination.
>
> > Â Or you've been suckered into believing wacky theories of the WC.
> >Look into the ARRB information and you'll find an awful lot of new
> >information that was kept from us all years ago.
>
> I'm not the one who dismisses the autopsy, and assumes other evidence was
> fabricated, you are.
>
I don't dismiss the autopsy. You keep making that mistake. I
believe there are facts there that give us some solid evidence of
manipulation of evidence.
> >> >The evidence and testimony
> >> >released through the ARRB was a godsend and has opened up much truth tha=
> >t
> >> >was being hidden in the past.
>
> >> Yes, the ARRB helped answer a ot of questions.
>
> >> >It's a new ball game now,
>
> >> I'm sure you think it is.
>
> >> >and interest has
> >> >not gone away.
>
> >> A lot of it has because reasonable individuals are tired of reading about
> >> so many different wacky theories (speaking of which where the heck did
> >> your bullet go after it supposedly blew out his BOH....huh?)...that assum=
> >e
> >> the medical and other evidence was fabricated.
>
> > Â If you take an unbiased view of the ARRB information from the
> >autopsy, and then compare it with much of the First stories you were
> >told, you might find some problems with that autopsy yourself.
>
> What was gleened from the ARRB is consistent with what was found during
> the autopsy.
>
Nope. The testimony of Tom Robinson was in the ARRB information,
along with Dennis David and Paul O'Connor and many others that I have
quoted. Most of those people were under an order of silence for many
years of the case. Until the law was changed, and even some agencies
have kept their information secret anyway, ignoring the law.
> >> Oh, let me take a stab at your answer to that question (if you've evn
> >> bothered with an explanation for the lack of lead found behind JFK)....th=
> >e
> >> consirators confiscated the bullet that supposedly exited his BOH and
> >> placed large fragments in the front of the limo....is that close?
> >> Good grief!
>
> > Â Nope. Â It looks like you've gone off the reservation on your wacky
> >ideas. Â Better if you use links and some backup before pushing those
> >crazy ideas.
>
> Okay, so what happened to the fragments in back of JFK....from your
> imaginary BOH exiting bullet? Okay, I'll read on.
>
That's been discussed above, but the BOH was above the back odf the
seat and the bullet could have come out and been lost. Also there was
a bullet, said to be a .45 that was seen at the edge of the grass
right where the BOH bullet might have gone, but that's not a
guarantee.
> > Â Now, I would suggest that the height of the BOH of JFK was such that a
> >bullet could go past the limo and be lost along the way.
>
> Oh, so we have the old "My dog ate my homework" excuse.
>
Don't be silly. Bullets get lost in shooting cases. And there was
a bullet seen in the right place, but it wasn't there when they went
back to look for it.
> And the large fragments in the front of the limo...what bullet were they
> from?
>
Two possibilities, first, they were from the bullet that hit the
chrome header over the windshield. If someone fired the MC rifle from
the TSBD down toward the limo, it could get there that way, or if test
bullets were saved from the FBI testing, (that explains the
replacement of CE399) the fragments could be left by the FBI in the
middle of the night when they 'found' them in the middle of the seat
of the limo. If you look it up, you find that Robert Frazier (who was
in charge of much of the evidence) went to the W.H. garage and found
the fragments, one of which was in the 'middle of the front seat'.
This while the Secret service stole the limo from Parkland and drove
it to the airport, took off and landed at Washington area, drove the
limo to the W.H. and missed the bullet on the front seat until Frazier
got there and found it in the middle of the night.
> Or were they just placed there?
>
Two possibilities above, pick one.
> >Or the bullet
> >might have been a 'frangible' bullet and there was little left of it.
>
> Oh of course, the old frangible bullet...why did I not think of that
> myself?....but even with such a bullet the fragments didn't vanish,
> vaporize, or disappear right? Remember none, zilcho, zero, fragments were
> found behind JFK!!!!!!!!!
>
Though many were found IN JFK. There was an FBI agent that showed
Tom Robinson a vial with 10 fragments in it that were found by the
autopsists. I mentioned it earlier that one of the assistants at the
autopsy (Dennis David) saw enough fragments to make more than one
bullet and less than two (see below). Tom Robinson saw the
prosectors digging around in the head for fragments, and damaging the
skull in the process.
> >The autopsy got out a goodly bunch of metal from the head, and Dennis
> >David was asked to type a report for an FBI agent (Sibert) that said there
> >was more than a bullet found, but less than 2 bullets. Â The agent then
> >confiscated the copies, the carbon paper and the ribbon from the
> >typewriter for security:
>
> There's that wound-ballistics expert again......and more evidence being
> tampered with.
>
No expert needed. Anyone in the FBI would know the approximate size
of a bullet and could make that statement. But here's something just
for you:
Sibert & O'Neill's report mentions that "The chief pathologist
advised that 40 particles of disintegrated bullet and smudges
indicated that the projectile had fragmented while passing through the
skull."
From:
http://jfklancer.com/docs.maps/S-O-3.GIF
> Good grief where does it stop?
>
Yes, when will you begin to listen to the evidence and the links and
begin to wonder what did they do to you with their wacky theories!
> >
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D7...
> >PageId=3D4
>
> >John,
> > Â Everything I've said above is backed up by testimony and I've passed
> >the links for you.
>
> You've backed up nothing......except to your own satisfaction.
>
That sounds like someone that refused to look at some or all of the
links, all of which back up what I've said.
> >If I've missed any that concern you, let me know
> >and I'll find the needed backup.
>
> Don't bother, your wacky position is obviously hopelessly cemented in the
> best concrete known to man.
>
Ah... You refuse to delve any further into it. You're put off by
too much evidence that goes against your beliefs of so many years.
But it's not your fault, the info was hidden until the ARRB got into
it after the law change.
> I need to learn to not engage certain people about their wacky
> theories....it'd be more interesting arguing with the wacko who advanced
> the "Greer shot JFK" theory.
>
Now see? You and I agree that the 'Greer' idea is baloney...:)
> Sorry for replying...I'll try harder to ignore your posts.
>
Suit yourself. Apparently you were unable to invalidate my information
and you don't want to get any closer to reality and the damage it will do
to so many years of thinking a certain way. No problem.
Chris