The head wound controversy

[OHLeeRedux]

This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.

The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:

1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
and the time it arrived at Bethesda.

2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.

3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.


I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
provides the most reasonable answer to this question.

The first answer requires there to have been a conspiracy involving
members of the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, and most likely members
of JFK's inner circle, including his personal physician. The body would
have to have been removed from the coffin and surgically altered at some
time during the flight from Dallas to D.C., without Jackie knowing about
it -- unless she were involved in the conspiracy.

The second possibility involves high ranking officers of the U.S. Navy
deliberately falsifying evidence in a major crime, AND knowing exactly how
to alter that evidence, within hours of the crime, in a way that would
prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.

The third possibility requires us to assume that the Parkland doctors were
trying to save the president's life. They saw him lying on his back with
brain matter in his hair. They did not lift the hair and scalp to look at
the skull. They inferred from what they saw that there was a large wound
in the back of his head. In the 1980s, while filming a PBS documentary,
the Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they
said that they were consistent with what they saw in the emergency room.

Which answer requires us to make the most simple, common sense
assumptions?

I would say that number three wins by a mile.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2013 9:04 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>

Yeah, so what?

> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>

Your thinking is very limited.

>
> I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
> hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
> provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>

Not exactly correct. And it doesn't apply to conspiracies.

> The first answer requires there to have been a conspiracy involving
> members of the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, and most likely members
> of JFK's inner circle, including his personal physician. The body would
> have to have been removed from the coffin and surgically altered at some
> time during the flight from Dallas to D.C., without Jackie knowing about
> it -- unless she were involved in the conspiracy.
>

Nope. Ridiculous straw man argument. I don't believe in the body
alteration theory, but you are degrading yourself when you have to
resort to straw man arguments.

> The second possibility involves high ranking officers of the U.S. Navy
> deliberately falsifying evidence in a major crime, AND knowing exactly how
> to alter that evidence, within hours of the crime, in a way that would
> prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
>

Body alteration does not ipso fact prove a lone nut.

> The third possibility requires us to assume that the Parkland doctors were
> trying to save the president's life. They saw him lying on his back with
> brain matter in his hair. They did not lift the hair and scalp to look at
> the skull. They inferred from what they saw that there was a large wound
> in the back of his head. In the 1980s, while filming a PBS documentary,

No, what they could see from their vantage points was a wound in the top
of the head extending into the back of the head.
Jackie closed up as much of the wound as she could.

> the Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they
> said that they were consistent with what they saw in the emergency room.
>

Not really.

[Lanny]

With regard to scenarios #1 and #2, nothing is so abjectly irrational as
advanced by almost every conspiracy theorist than that the conspirators
would willfully conspire BEFORE the fact to create the very incriminating
forensic evidence that they would then work so diligently to obliterate or
conceal AFTER the fact.

This insanely counter-intuitive criminal “strategy” is even more
self-condemning when it is realized that the conspirators could not have
possibly predicted the degree and duration of unfettered access they would
have to the body in the hours immediately following the assassination.
Nor, as you noted, could they be certain of having all the medical and
forensically relevant details of the attack necessary to construct a hasty
alteration of the wounds that would nonetheless be faithful to the ongoing
discovery of evidence that was certain to be forthcoming as the
investigation proceeded over the ensuing weeks and months.

Everything about such an illusion defies all “reason” for its
creation.

[OHLeeRedux]

"Not really"? Does that mean they did or they didn't? In fact, the
Parkland doctors said the autopsy evidence was consistent with what they
saw. Watch the documentary.

Your "straw man" excuse for not being able to answer an argument is
getting old.

If you have another scenario explaining why initial observations of JFK's
head wound differed, I'd be glad to hear it.

[Herbert Blenner]

There is also a discrepancy between the entry head wound described by
Humes and the documentation produced by the autopsy. When this factor is
considered the case against the observations of the Parkland doctors
becomes much weaker. In fact the case collapses.

Herbert

[OHLeeRedux]

Humes was one of the autopsy physicians. If there is a discrepancy in his
description of the entry head wound, then it has nothing to do with
statements of the Parkland doctors, because the Parkland doctors, as they
testified, never saw the small entry head wound.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Amen. Absolutely spot-on.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 10:25:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/2/2013 9:04 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> > This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> > initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> > that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yeah, so what?
>
>
>
> > The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
>
> > this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
> >
>
> > 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>
> > and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
> >
>
> > 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>
> > photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
> >
>
> > 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>
> > JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Your thinking is very limited.
>

So is your comment, since you haven't explained yourself.

>
>
> >
>
> > I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
>
> > hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
>
> > provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not exactly correct. And it doesn't apply to conspiracies.
>
>
>
> > The first answer requires there to have been a conspiracy involving
>
> > members of the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, and most likely members
>
> > of JFK's inner circle, including his personal physician. The body would
>
> > have to have been removed from the coffin and surgically altered at some
>
> > time during the flight from Dallas to D.C., without Jackie knowing about
>
> > it -- unless she were involved in the conspiracy.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nope. Ridiculous straw man argument. I don't believe in the body
>
> alteration theory, but you are degrading yourself when you have to
>
> resort to straw man arguments.
>
>
>
> > The second possibility involves high ranking officers of the U.S. Navy
>
> > deliberately falsifying evidence in a major crime, AND knowing exactly how
>
> > to alter that evidence, within hours of the crime, in a way that would
>
> > prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Body alteration does not ipso fact prove a lone nut.
>

An obvious error. Of course it doesn't prove a lone nut, it proves a
conspiracy. Since Oswald was in custody, ANY cover up of evidence such as
body alteration proves conspiracy.

>
>
> > The third possibility requires us to assume that the Parkland doctors were
>
> > trying to save the president's life. They saw him lying on his back with
>
> > brain matter in his hair. They did not lift the hair and scalp to look at
>
> > the skull. They inferred from what they saw that there was a large wound
>
> > in the back of his head. In the 1980s, while filming a PBS documentary,
>
>
>
> No, what they could see from their vantage points was a wound in the top
>
> of the head extending into the back of the head.
>
> Jackie closed up as much of the wound as she could.
>

Nope. Won't do. Even the testimony of Clint Hill, the first person to
get a good look at the head wounds said clearly that the only wound he
could see was the large head wound at the right rear of the head. There
was a lot of blood and that could cover up small wounds like the bullet
entry on the right forehead, but not the large wound on the top of the
head that has been made up in a fairy tale.

>
>
> > the Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they
>
> > said that they were consistent with what they saw in the emergency room.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not really.
>
>

Correct. A few might have done that, but most saw the wounds as noted
and the first impression usually is more correct. Over 40 people saw the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, and not the top of head. That occurred at
Bethesda by the prosectors before the 'official' autopsy, based on
testimony.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:01:57 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
> With regard to scenarios #1 and #2, nothing is so abjectly irrational as
>
> advanced by almost every conspiracy theorist than that the conspirators
>
> would willfully conspire BEFORE the fact to create the very incriminating
>
> forensic evidence that they would then work so diligently to obliterate or
>
> conceal AFTER the fact.
>
>

Actually, most of the evidence was created after the murder. They knew
generally what they would be dealing with when they had X number of
shooters in DP, and one of the pointers to that thinking is that they got
to the point of taking out guns just to illegally steal the body from the
Dallas Medical Examiner at Parkland hospital. As well, they stole the
limousine too. Both items were crucial for any forensics people to use to
make determinations of fact in the case. Much conversation was had on AF1
talking to the ground and deciding where they would have the autopsy done.
Both Humes and Boswell were military with careers and retirement pending,
and were ordered to do the work needed to make it appear that the one
shooter was above and behind JFK.

The bullet evidence all went to the same person in the FBI, who was
instrumental in making chain of custody errors with the bullets, and for
helping with faking bullet evidence. CE399 and the 2 fragments from the
front seat of the limo (supposedly) were in one man's hands. The body was
worked on before the true forensic pathologist and wound ballistician got
to the autopsy at 8:30pm (Pierre Finck). The FBI has been found complicit
in changing reports from witnesses that support the 'lone nut' wacky
theory.

All above statements come from testimony and facts in the case.

>
> This insanely counter-intuitive criminal “strategy” is even more
>
> self-condemning when it is realized that the conspirators could not have
>
> possibly predicted the degree and duration of unfettered access they would
>
> have to the body in the hours immediately following the assassination.
>
> Nor, as you noted, could they be certain of having all the medical and
>
> forensically relevant details of the attack necessary to construct a hasty
>
> alteration of the wounds that would nonetheless be faithful to the ongoing
>
> discovery of evidence that was certain to be forthcoming as the
>
> investigation proceeded over the ensuing weeks and months.
>
>
>
> Everything about such an illusion defies all “reason” for its
>
> creation.

Actually, they had a good idea what they would be dealing with, and knew
a few things in advance. They knew that there would be multiple bullet
wounds and they would have to prove they all came from above and behind at
the TSBD. The patsy had been selected and the location too. They knew
they had to get the body and limo immediately and spirit them off to a
military hospital where they had power to give orders and threaten people
that had to work on the body. The limo was taken to the W.H. garage and
looked over, later to be sent out to have the through-and-through hole in
the windshield fixed.

Again, all the above has come from testimony or facts in the case. It
makes a great deal of sense. And to have the full cooperation of the US
government at your hands to carry out your plan, well that's a bonus
that's hard to beat.

Chris

[mainframetech]

How easily false information gets started. Someone here said that 3
doctors from Parkland changed their minds after seeing the X-rays and
photos. Not ALL of the Parkland doctors and nurses. By saying "Parkland
doctors said..." you are acting like the whole hospital agreed with the WC
wacky theories. Plus if the photos and X-rays are altered (they were)
they may have convinced them of something they saw in a rush a few years
before. The first impression is usually the better one, and all the
Parkland doctors and nurses saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.

The reason why the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head
wounds were different is because there was work done on the head at
Bethesda before the 'official' autopsy began. Sworn testimony has stated
it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yet some people saw the entry wound and pointed to it exactly:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/kilduff.gif
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/dennisdavid.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3

The Parkland doctors had other fish to fry. The small entry wound
didn't stand out like the 'large hole' in the BOH.

Chris

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:


You should not study the autopsy photos in isolation.

You have to first study the crime scene photos.

The crime scene photos are the most important photos taken of a crime.
Duh. that is why they are taken.

The crime scene photos contain valuable information not contained in the
autopsy photos, particularly in this case.

The autopsists did not know what they were dealing with.

They had no idea how many shots were fired and from what direction and
angle.

They did not have any crime scene photos to help them.

We do.

We have impact spatter evidence from the crime scene photos.

We have fragment ejection patterns from the crime scene photos.

We have blood ejection patterns from the crime scene photos.

We have the movements of the president in response to impacts.


It is stupid to interpret the autopsy photos in isolation. You have to
incorporate the crime scene photos and the result of the autopsy has to be
consistent with the crime scene photos.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 9:04:35 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:

Naah. Number 2 has the best chance, especially since there is testimony
that the Bethesda prosectors worked on the body after dismissing all the
assistants and performed surgery on the head and caused damage to the
skull in the process. During that time they also removed the brain, but
told no one what they had done. Just the act of dismissing the
assistants, who all the doctors relied on is a guilty action. Why dismiss
ALL assistants when there was also NO one in the gallery and no witnesses
when they started? It was Paul O'Connor's job to remove the brain and fix
it in formalin, yet the doctors did it themselves and didn't tell him,
leaving him surprised that the brain was missing at the 'official' autopsy
after 8"00pm. Documentation shows that the body arrived at the Bethesda
morgue at 6:35pm, and the Kennedy party didn't arrive until AFTER 7:17pm.


No doubt about the selection of number 2. Testimony defeats the Occam's
Razor theory. And as we know, that theory is just that. We know that it's
possible for the more complex answer to be the right one in some cases.
All information above can be linked to and shown for those that doubt it and need the references. Those afraid of what they would find won't ask.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

Read this article. If you don't want to believe me then maybe you will
believe, Dr. Thornton Boswell, who explains precisely, why the damage in
the BOH was not visible in some autopsy photos.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html



Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Chris,

You are relying on witness statements (your "over 40," although that is
questionable), most of whom are not medical doctors, to precisely describe
the location of a wound on the president's head, which they observed while
under the stress of the tragedy that had just occurred, none of them,
including the Parkland doctors, having made a close examination of the
wound.

How much difference is there really, especially observed in the horrific
circumstances of the assassination, between the "back" of the head and the
"side" of the head, when the "large" wound is obscured by thick hair
covered in brain matter. A couple of inches? And for a couple of inches,
observed by people under stress, not closely examined, you come to the
conclusion that the Bethesda doctors surgically altered the body, knowing
already what the autopsy needed to show to prove that a lone assassin,
arrested only a few hours earlier, killed JFK?

Your conclusion serves to prove my point regarding Occum's Razor. Your
assumptions go way beyond the limits of reason and common sense.

[mainframetech]

It may also be foolish to rely too much on the autopsy photos, since
they have been 'messed with'. At least one of them shows the attempt to
cover up the entry wound in the right forehead. Go to:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Then scroll down to the photo labeled 'Groden Superior' and look at the
right forehead and the patch of 'stuff' there where a few folks saw the
entry wound.

Dennis David:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/dennisdavid.jpg
Malcolm Kilduff:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/kilduff.gif

[Lanny]

I have to ask two quick questions, if you would indulge me.

How about the U. S. moon landings? Real or faked?

And 9/11? Inside job conducted by United States forces or actual
terrorist attack executed by Islamic jihadists?

[OHLeeRedux]

The autopsy photos have been messed with. The Z-film has been messed with.
Any piece of evidence that doesn't support your theory, which you have
already decided is true, has been messed with.

It doesn't matter WHO messed with the evidence. It could have been
anybody. And it doesn't matter how complicated and involved it would have
been to do all the messing, and to keep it secret from all but the most
persistent amateur researchers. THEY managed to do it.

THEY must have done it. Because if they hadn't, then all of those
fascinating conspiracy theories would fade into the world of make-believe,
just like the Cottingley fairies, just like Piltdown man, the Cardiff
Giant and the Book of Mormon.

And like those delusions of the past, believed by educated and intelligent
people of the time, the seemingly endless JFK assassination conspiracy
theories will someday become humorous historical footnotes, and our
descendents will shake their heads, wondering how anyone could ever have
believed such nonsense.

[Anthony Marsh]

What about the aliens? Why did you leave them out of your straw man
arguments?
speciesist!

[mainframetech]

We must first realize that Occam's Razor is an idea and one that any
scientist will agree can be wrong in some instances. It suggests only a
possible way to determine which is a good path to follow, but no situation
is guaranteed to follow the suggestion.

It's handy to talk about the 'stress' of the situation, but most of the
people we're speaking of were emergency room staff, and had dealt with
pressures of life and death on a daily basis. As well their medical
training includes training in not losing your head. Also, to make a
mistake in what they are describing to someone else may lead to the death
of a patient if they are wrong, so that being careful and right in their
seeing and describing are important to these people (and obviously, their
patients). I think we can get away from all the talk of stress and
pressure, etc. in this kind of crowd.

The 'over 40' comment of mine is being worked on and I've gotten up to
23 people documented and with pointers and links, and I haven't started on
the 26 witnesses in the gallery at the autopsy. I will put it out as soon
as it's done. I'm quite sure it will reach its goal of 'over 40'. But if
you need something sooner, try listing the number of people you can find
that DIDN'T see a 'large hole' in the BOH, and ONLY saw a small,
bullet-sized hole. So far when I issued that challenge, one person was
able to come up with 3 people. The prosectors at the autopsy.
Suggestive, eh?


We don't see the same things, since we come from different beliefs in
what happened. I see facts, and I believe you see your beliefs. The
difference between our forms of conversation shows it. I use frequent
references to the 'record', testimony facts, etc. Anytime I make a
statement that is not clearly supposition, I'm coming from the 'record'
and I will happily give out the pointers to whatever I'm asked about, to
show my source for my statement. You conversation includes more belief
talk, like "How much difference is there really... between the "back" of
the head and the "side" of the head". Asking for agreement on something,
but NOT showing any measurement, no testimony, etc.

There is testimony that Humes and Boswell damaged the head and removed the
brain long before the 'official' autopsy, yet you ignore it and start with
'all these medically trained people' made mistakes because they were under
stress. Let's look at a few of those assumptions in light of facts rather
than beliefs.

We know the body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35pm based on Roger
Boyajian's after action report. So we know there was time to damage the
body and to remove the brain before the 'official' autopsy began at
8:00pm. We know that they kicked out ALL assistants following putting the
body on the table, due to testimony of the various assistants. That alone
was very suspicious. After that dismissal, Tom Robinson arrived at about
6:45-7:00pm. A bit early, but he saw Humes and Boswell working on the
head of the body. He SAW them remove the brain, which was NOT a task done
by the pathologists, it was done by whomever filled the position that Paul
O'Connor filled that night. Another suspicious action, because when
O'Connor went to do his usual duty, the brain was gone, and since no one
told him the prosectors had gone in early and removed the brain, he
thought that a bullet had blown the brain out of the head! This is
documented in his testimony in the Mock trial.

We know that Humes and Boswell did the work on the head from Tom
Robinson's testimony, and his comment that the 'pathologists' had done
damage to the head, when he was asked to list the head wounds. He stated
that he was listing the wounds, but NOT the ones made by the pathologists.
His drawings are on record with the ARRB, and I've pointed to them many
times, but no one apparently dares to look at them. Among the wounds he
listed, he did NOT mention the TOP of the head, since it was not a normal
wound, but one of the ones the prosectors had caused. Robinson did not
think that Humes and Boswell were doing something 'secret', he assumed
they were doing what they should. But he wasn't that familiar with the
local practices and who did what.

At 7:17pm according to Sibert's report, the bronze casket and the
Kennedy party arrived, and they went up to the 17th floor, documented by
Dennis David and another assistant, who saw them arrive. Sibert's report
agrees with that. He also stated that the ambulance that brought the
bronze casket went first to the main entrance and let out the party, then
drove around to the rear. So his time of arrival being 7:17pm, would have
to be moved up a bit for the time it arrived at the rear morgue entrance.

There is much more to that tale, but my point is that above is from the
'record', not from beliefs. Are you able to argue against the facts and
testimony? If so, then show your testimony, your facts, your timeline,
your evidence that shows my facts and testimony to be wrong or
misunderstood, or some valid reason for it not to be the real case.

Chris

[mainframetech]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Though you are being facetious, I have no problem answering you honestly.

The facts and scientific evidence for 9/11 Show that the 3 (yes 3)
towers were brought down through intentional 'Controlled Demolition'.
Remember, I said facts and scientific evidence, not the usual CT waving a
star Trek banner and speaking in Klingon language. There is a group of
over 2,000 architects and engineers that have been looking at the
collapses, and they're not interested in WHO at this point, only how it
was accomplished. I'm of the same mind. Proving it was an intentional
Controlled Demolition is first, and demanding truly independent
investigation is next. Not like the cherry picked panels for the JFK
murder. If you have the ability to understand scientific viewpoints, go
to:

As to the Moon Landings, anyone with an interest in applied science
knows they were real. To fake them would cost as much as doing the real
landings.

Chris

[mainframetech]

What a shame. You've just written a paragraph with few if any facts or
evidence. All beliefs. I've presented a scenario with many facts, and
many chunks of testimony, all of which I will back up at the drop of a
hat, and you come up with absolutely nothing to counter those facts,
testimony and evidence, except your belief that I'm wrong. Your paragraph
is well written, but lacks the substance we need to have a discourse on
the topic, if you won't enter the lists and use the tools to argue with.
I could go on for hours on my beliefs about anything and never once state
a fact too, but I would rather PROVE my case than hope someone will
appreciate my feelings in the situation.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The truth is not a popularity contest. ER doctors are wrong about half
the time. That's why we have autopsies.

>
> At 7:17pm according to Sibert's report, the bronze casket and the
> Kennedy party arrived, and they went up to the 17th floor, documented by
> Dennis David and another assistant, who saw them arrive. Sibert's report
> agrees with that. He also stated that the ambulance that brought the
> bronze casket went first to the main entrance and let out the party, then
> drove around to the rear. So his time of arrival being 7:17pm, would have
> to be moved up a bit for the time it arrived at the rear morgue entrance.
>

Please qquote for us where he said "bronze."

[OHLeeRedux]

Thank you, Anthony, for pointing out my grievous omission.

I should of course have mentioned the Straw Man Aliens, hailing from the
same planet that gave us Christian BALE and Ray Bolger.

[Lanny]

I sincerely thank you for your answer.


>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

Sibert didn't say bronze in his report. However, if you are a JFK
researcher, you know that the bronze casket was used from Parkland through
to AF1 and then the Bethesda morgue and was followed by Jackie for most of
its journey. Sibert & O'Neill followed Jackie along her journey, and
therefore they were with her and the bronze casket. The only other
possibility is the 'shipping casket' which was left in the morgue room.
Would you want to suggest Sibert was with that one instead? :)

[mainframetech]

All very humorous, but still with absolutely NO facts or evidence to
counter my scenario described above and in many places and threads. Can I
then assume no one has found any thing to counter my scenario?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

False appeal to authority. What is that, like 1% of all architects and
engineers?

> collapses, and they're not interested in WHO at this point, only how it
> was accomplished. I'm of the same mind. Proving it was an intentional

The HOW tells you the who. If it was a controlled demolition that means
our government did it. Al Qaeda did not have access and control.

> Controlled Demolition is first, and demanding truly independent
> investigation is next. Not like the cherry picked panels for the JFK
> murder. If you have the ability to understand scientific viewpoints, go
> to:
>

http://WHERE?

> As to the Moon Landings, anyone with an interest in applied science
> knows they were real. To fake them would cost as much as doing the real
> landings.
>

So what? That's not an argument.
Have you seen the new movie about the accident in space? Is it true that
the movie cost more than the mission?

> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Please don't feed them after midnight.

[mainframetech]

Is that an effort to prove something, with NO facts, NO Evidence and
just your belief that it was all too impossible, therefore it never
happened that way? An appeal to emotional disbelief? Trying to use
numbers a different way in an attempt to reduce the thousands of
specialists that reject the notions put forward by NIST, who has
scientifically been proven wrong. Tsk, tsk.

>
>
> > collapses, and they're not interested in WHO at this point, only how it
>
> > was accomplished. I'm of the same mind. Proving it was an intentional
>
>
>
> The HOW tells you the who. If it was a controlled demolition that means
>
> our government did it. Al Qaeda did not have access and control.
>

That's your choice to believe that. I'll get on the right parade when
the first step is accomplished.

>
>
> > Controlled Demolition is first, and demanding truly independent
>
> > investigation is next. Not like the cherry picked panels for the JFK
>
> > murder. If you have the ability to understand scientific viewpoints, go
>
> > to:

http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> >
>
> http://WHERE?
>
Strange. My link was deleted. This new system has its bugs. No
problem though. Here's the right link again above.

>
>
> > As to the Moon Landings, anyone with an interest in applied science
>
> > knows they were real. To fake them would cost as much as doing the real
>
> > landings.
>
>
> So what? That's not an argument.

I'm not making an argument. A question was asked...I answered it.

>
> Have you seen the new movie about the accident in space? Is it true that
>
> the movie cost more than the mission?
>

I have no idea.

[Anthony Marsh]

We know that from all the evidence, but the Liftonites think they could
have switched caskets before liftoff.

Sibert was close to the bronze casket all the time.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am only pointing out your logical error.

> just your belief that it was all too impossible, therefore it never
> happened that way? An appeal to emotional disbelief? Trying to use
> numbers a different way in an attempt to reduce the thousands of
> specialists that reject the notions put forward by NIST, who has
> scientifically been proven wrong. Tsk, tsk.
>

My point stands. It was a phony appeal to authority.

>>
>>
>>> collapses, and they're not interested in WHO at this point, only how it
>>
>>> was accomplished. I'm of the same mind. Proving it was an intentional
>>
>>
>>
>> The HOW tells you the who. If it was a controlled demolition that means
>>
>> our government did it. Al Qaeda did not have access and control.
>>
> That's your choice to believe that. I'll get on the right parade when
> the first step is accomplished.
>

You can't refute what I just said.
Whatever conditions you assume for controlled demolition could only have
been done by our government. So you are using it as shorthand for
accusing the government.

>>
>>
>>> Controlled Demolition is first, and demanding truly independent
>>
>>> investigation is next. Not like the cherry picked panels for the JFK
>>
>>> murder. If you have the ability to understand scientific viewpoints, go
>>
>>> to:
> http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>
>>>
>>
>> http://WHERE?
>>
> Strange. My link was deleted. This new system has its bugs. No
> problem though. Here's the right link again above.
>
>>
>>
>>> As to the Moon Landings, anyone with an interest in applied science
>>
>>> knows they were real. To fake them would cost as much as doing the real
>>
>>> landings.
>>
>>
>> So what? That's not an argument.
>
>
>
> I'm not making an argument. A question was asked...I answered it.

When you say "to fake them" that is making an argument. Which you refuse
to prove.

>
>
>>
>> Have you seen the new movie about the accident in space? Is it true that
>>
>> the movie cost more than the mission?
>>
>
>
>
> I have no idea.
>

THAT's my point. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[mainframetech]

Yes, I tend to agree that Sibert was close to the casket much of the
time. We don't know if he had a bathroom break or food break though.
Any number of agents might have ordered Sibert to help with the gimmick of
fooling the media by changing caskets. Or it may have been done while he
was away on a break. There wasn't much to do in swapping the body from
one casket to another. And there is the small chance that it was done at
Parkland, though I don't know that they would have a navy shipping casket
available. One could be brought quickly, I suppose.

>
>
> >>> There is much more to that tale, but my point is that above is from the
>
> >>
>
> >>> 'record', not from beliefs. Are you able to argue against the facts and
>
> >>
>
> >>> testimony? If so, then show your testimony, your facts, your timeline,
>
> >>
>
> >>> your evidence that shows my facts and testimony to be wrong or
>
> >>
>
> >>> misunderstood, or some valid reason for it not to be the real case.
>

Because 'I don't believe it' isn't enough anymore.
>
Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

The autopsy photos and x-rays, as well as the Zapruder film, show that JFK
sustained a large wound on the right side of his head, not on the back of
his head. The autopsy proved that the large wound was an exit wound,
resulting from a shot from behind. Other evidence shows that Lee Oswald
fired his rifle from the sixth floor of the TSBD, from behind.

All of this has been proven over and over again. The Warren Commission may
not have been perfect - no enterprise involving humans ever is - but they
got it right. Oswald killed JFK, and he did it alone.

If you choose not to believe that, if your disbelief requires you to claim
that evidence was faked, autopsy doctors lied, the body was altered, then
it is up to you to prove that.

And proof of those crimes, because that is what falsifying evidence is,
does not consist in quoting endless reams of testimony and pointing out
inconsistencies which invariably crop up in any major case.

Show testimony with supporting evidence of a person or persons who saw
evidence being altered, or who altered it themselves. Exactly how and
where was the evidence altered? Support your answer with direct testimony
that particularly describes the alterations.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the crime of tampering with
evidence occurred.

This dispute reminds me of the OJ case. The defense presented evidence
showing that Mark Fuhrman was a racist. Okay, he clearly was/is a racist.
Therefore what? The implication is that Fuhrman framed OJ and that OJ was
innocent. Where is the proof that Fuhrman falsified any evidence? It was
never presented because it does not exist. All the defense did was to
present innuendo, which unfortunately was enough to sway the jury.

And that is all I see in the JFK head wound controversy: innuendo.

No need to re-post more and more witness statements about seeing a wound
here or there, two inches this way or that. It's been done ad nauseam. If
you have direct evidence - not innuendo- of photos, films, x-rays or the
body being altered, let's see it

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/5/2013 7:18 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> The autopsy photos and x-rays, as well as the Zapruder film, show that JFK
> sustained a large wound on the right side of his head, not on the back of
> his head. The autopsy proved that the large wound was an exit wound,
> resulting from a shot from behind. Other evidence shows that Lee Oswald
> fired his rifle from the sixth floor of the TSBD, from behind.
>

So it doesn't matter to you exactly where the wounds are? A bullet near
the EOP and then 4 inches higher are exactly the same to you.

> All of this has been proven over and over again. The Warren Commission may
> not have been perfect - no enterprise involving humans ever is - but they
> got it right. Oswald killed JFK, and he did it alone.
>
> If you choose not to believe that, if your disbelief requires you to claim
> that evidence was faked, autopsy doctors lied, the body was altered, then
> it is up to you to prove that.
>

No. None of that is necessary. But some of it did happen. Everyone in
Washington agreed that Oswald was the only shooter, but they thought it
was a conspiracy.

> And proof of those crimes, because that is what falsifying evidence is,
> does not consist in quoting endless reams of testimony and pointing out
> inconsistencies which invariably crop up in any major case.
>
> Show testimony with supporting evidence of a person or persons who saw
> evidence being altered, or who altered it themselves. Exactly how and
> where was the evidence altered? Support your answer with direct testimony
> that particularly describes the alterations.
>

Unreasonable demands. Show me a videotape of the Wateergate burglars
breaking in. In any case you only get pieces of the puzzle and then have
to put them together to see the whole picture.

> The burden of proof is on those who claim that the crime of tampering with
> evidence occurred.
>

And we already have.

> This dispute reminds me of the OJ case. The defense presented evidence
> showing that Mark Fuhrman was a racist. Okay, he clearly was/is a racist.

Oh please, don't tell me he actually went there.

> Therefore what? The implication is that Fuhrman framed OJ and that OJ was
> innocent. Where is the proof that Fuhrman falsified any evidence? It was

Mark Fuhrman was convicted of perjury. Remember the EDTA? EDTA is a
chemical added to a test tube to preserve blood samples.
So how does is get onto the inside of OJ's socks only in a small area,
not the whole sock?

> never presented because it does not exist. All the defense did was to
> present innuendo, which unfortunately was enough to sway the jury.
>

It was evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and the only way to punish
the prosecution was by jury nullification.

> And that is all I see in the JFK head wound controversy: innuendo.
>

Because you don't look at the evidence.

[mainframetech]

Odd. You were shown the proof from more than one witness of
'tampering', and you walked away from it and showed NOTHING that countered
it. The reason I use testimony is that it has a better chance of being
true, given the many problems that have been found with both film and
photos.

To start with:

You have relied completely on the Z-film, autopsy photos and X-rays.
All of which have been found by specialists to be phony. True, that other
experts came along and said all was well with the evidence, but it puts a
cloud on it. Many of the people involved that witnessed the events had no
reason to lie, and when there are enough of them, they corroborate each
other. In the case of the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, I'm willing to
list many people that saw it, and you are not willing to list anyone at
all that saw ONLY a tiny bullet hole, other than the prosecters.

1. You appear not to have read the testimony of Saundra Kay Spencer,
who processed photos of the autopsy that were a completely different set
and showed a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. That alone puts the autopsy
photos (that we're familiar with) under a cloud.

2. Many links have been offered to you that show person after person
saying that there was a large hole in the BOH of JFK. Some of them supply
drawings. I doubt you ever bothered to look at them and read the
comments. Yet many of them were medically trained people, including ER
experienced people.

3. A complete sequence of events has been offered to you and you have
been completely unable to contest ANY of it, and seem to think that just
YOU stating that you have all the answers given to you directly from the
WC should be enough for anyone.

4. Listening to you saying that Oswald "fired his rifle from the sixth
floor of the TSBD" makes one wonder where you got that information. No
one has proved that he was even ON the 6th floor, much less fired a rifle.
Actually, the evidence suggests he didn't fire a rifle at all.

5. I agree that the burden of proof is on me to make my case. I've
mostly done that, but you have contested none of it with any facts,
evidence or logic, only your personal belief that the WC knows all and
speaks only truth.

6. I would suggest that it's easy to sit back and potshot at someone's
work while doing none of your own, but if you want to show that I'm wrong
in the scenario I've presented, then prove it, since I've put forward my
proof already.

&. You have said the following: "Show testimony with supporting

evidence of a person or persons who saw evidence being altered, or who

altered it themselves." While I've done that, it was wasted on you
because you were unable to contest it, and seemed not to have read it at
all, or checked its veracity. Obviously you can figure out that there's a
small chance that a conspirator is going to testify against themselves,
and they would hope no one saw them doing any alteration. But fortunately
for us (or me at least) some witnessing of alteration happened and I
copied it and put it out. You seem to have missed that completely as with
a number of other proofs.

To help you out a bit, I showed you the testimony of Tom Robinson who
witnessed Humes and Boswell damaging the body during their removal of the
brain, a task that is mormally left to the assistants, who oddly were sent
out of the room while this was done. That action of dismissing EVERY
assistant from the morgue room while they did this work is suspicious just
by itself. All these things were found in testimony and yet you failed to
check any of it, it would appear. If you won't do the work to find
arguments for your WC case, how can you expect anyone to go along with
things you say? Stating 'this is so, the WC said it', doesn't hold much
water these days as you yourself noted the WC was not perfect, and they
certainly need some help in the witness, evidence and logic department.

You repeated the common mantra that there was no wound on the BOH of
JFK, and yet you don't seem willing to contest my number of 'over 40'
people who saw it, or to take up my challenge of listing more than the
prosectors that saw ONLY a tiny bullet hole.

In one link I can find 10-15 people, leaving it to you to present
anyone to counter them. Here you are:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3930.0

In the above link, scroll down about halfway and you'll find a montage
of people from both Parkland and Bethesda that are describing the 'large
hole' in the BOH of JFK.

Let's see if you can do that and then contest the people's experience.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Chris,

Again, your long post contains not one single reference to direct evidence
of a person or persons altering evidence.

Where does anyone say, "Yes, I saw Mr. X surgically altering JFK's body to
create wounds that were not there before," or something to that effect?
Same for the films and x-rays.

Falsifying evidence is a crime. It requires PROOF.

You are a prosecutor going into court saying, "I have witnesses who saw a
wound on the back of the head, several inches away from the side of the
head. No, none of my witnesses actually measured the position of the
wound, as the autopsy doctors did, but if they say "back of the head,"
that's good enough for me. No, I don't have any witnesses who actually saw
the alterations being done, but it must have been those autopsy doctors.
They are guilty of falsifying evidence."

You would be lucky if all that happened was that the judge laughed you out
of court. You would probably be fired.

People disagreeing about the exact position of a bloody head wound,
covered by hair and brain matter, when none of them except the autopsy
doctors lifted the hair and scalp to examine and measure the wound, is not
proof. It is innuendo.

[cmikes]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression, like many conspiracy
theorists, that people have to prove your theories wrong. That's not how
debate and reason work. The onus is on you to prove your imaginings.
For instance, if I posited that Martians killed JFK with Death Rays from
space and faked all the evidence, it would be my responsibility to provide
some proof for that theory. If you could provide some evidence for your
imaginings, that would be wonderful. If thousands of people got together
to kill JFK and fake all the evidence that proves that Oswald was guilty,
surely there must be tons of proof.

My own standard of proof, and I don't believe that this is unreasonable,
would be stuff like a conviction in a court of law, or a confession in
open court, or even the tiniest hint of physical evidence.

Surely these thousands of people involved in the conspiracy couldn't have
been that through, right? There must be some evidence that wasn't
changed, altered, or forged. And all of these people stuck with the
conspiracy to the bitter end? Not one of these thousands of people had
second thoughts, or a sudden attack of conscience? Or even got caught for
another crime and decided to sell out their co-conspirators? Or decided
they wanted to be the richest person in the world, made a deal for freedom
by turning in some of the other conspirators, and sold their story for
probably billions of dollars? There's a very old saying that's
appropriate here, "Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are
dead". There's no possible way that that many people could have gotten
together to kill JFK and not one has ever talked to this day.

[OHLeeRedux]

Addendum:

You seem to be comparing your accusations of evidence tampering by the
autopsy doctors on the one hand, to the case against Oswald on the other.
That comparison is invalid -- Apples and oranges.

If the evidence against Oswald were comparable to your case against the
doctors, it would be as follows: JFK was assassinated. There are hundreds
of witnesses who can testify to that. Oswald worked in a building along
the motorcade route. Therefore he is guilty.

I'm sure, whatever your beliefs are about other shooters and/or a
conspiracy, you know that the case against Oswald is exponentially
stronger than that.

[Anthony Marsh]

And he'll notice that they all put their fingers on the TOP of their
heads, not on the BACK where YOU think the hole was.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/6/2013 7:00 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 8:49:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, October 4, 2013 5:08:49 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Anthony, for pointing out my grievous omission.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I should of course have mentioned the Straw Man Aliens, hailing from the
>>
>>>
>>
>>> same planet that gave us Christian BALE and Ray Bolger.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> All very humorous, but still with absolutely NO facts or evidence to
>>
>> counter my scenario described above and in many places and threads. Can I
>>
>> then assume no one has found any thing to counter my scenario?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression, like many conspiracy
> theorists, that people have to prove your theories wrong. That's not how
> debate and reason work. The onus is on you to prove your imaginings.
> For instance, if I posited that Martians killed JFK with Death Rays from
> space and faked all the evidence, it would be my responsibility to provide
> some proof for that theory. If you could provide some evidence for your
> imaginings, that would be wonderful. If thousands of people got together
> to kill JFK and fake all the evidence that proves that Oswald was guilty,
> surely there must be tons of proof.
>

But we've already been through your childish scenario before and you
lost the argument. There were no Martians around in 1963. And death rays
from Mars could not be focused finely enough in 1963 to kill only Kennedy.


Ever hear of Watergate? Probably not. By your definitions if it was a
conspiracy there would have been tons of evidence and everyone would
know instantly that it was a conspiracy.

> My own standard of proof, and I don't believe that this is unreasonable,
> would be stuff like a conviction in a court of law, or a confession in
> open court, or even the tiniest hint of physical evidence.
>

You ARE unreasonable. That's why you're here.

> Surely these thousands of people involved in the conspiracy couldn't have
> been that through, right? There must be some evidence that wasn't
> changed, altered, or forged. And all of these people stuck with the
> conspiracy to the bitter end? Not one of these thousands of people had
> second thoughts, or a sudden attack of conscience? Or even got caught for

So according to you conspiracies must ALWAYS fall apart. Like the Castro
plots. Or 9/11. Or the Holocaust.

> another crime and decided to sell out their co-conspirators? Or decided
> they wanted to be the richest person in the world, made a deal for freedom
> by turning in some of the other conspirators, and sold their story for
> probably billions of dollars? There's a very old saying that's
> appropriate here, "Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are
> dead". There's no possible way that that many people could have gotten
> together to kill JFK and not one has ever talked to this day.
>

Go read some history books.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/6/2013 6:58 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Again, your long post contains not one single reference to direct evidence
> of a person or persons altering evidence.
>
> Where does anyone say, "Yes, I saw Mr. X surgically altering JFK's body to
> create wounds that were not there before," or something to that effect?
> Same for the films and x-rays.
>

Sophomoric straw man argument. No one said observing a surgeon alter
wounds. That is only one type of alteration. We have the physical proof
that Ford altered the report to move the wound up. It's what we call
"verbal" plastic surgery.
We have the physical evidence that FBI altered evidence by crossing out
some words on a document to conceal the fact that not all the bullet
fragments were properly accounted for and tested.
We have the curb which the FBI tried to patch up to conceal the mark.
But you would never know about any of these and many more because you
refuse to do any research.

> Falsifying evidence is a crime. It requires PROOF.
>
> You are a prosecutor going into court saying, "I have witnesses who saw a
> wound on the back of the head, several inches away from the side of the
> head. No, none of my witnesses actually measured the position of the
> wound, as the autopsy doctors did, but if they say "back of the head,"
> that's good enough for me. No, I don't have any witnesses who actually saw
> the alterations being done, but it must have been those autopsy doctors.
> They are guilty of falsifying evidence."

So you're another WC who can't tell the difference between front and
back. Or above and below.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 7:00:24 PM UTC-4, cmikes wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 8:49:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 4, 2013 5:08:49 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Thank you, Anthony, for pointing out my grievous omission.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I should of course have mentioned the Straw Man Aliens, hailing from the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > same planet that gave us Christian BALE and Ray Bolger.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > All very humorous, but still with absolutely NO facts or evidence to
>
> >
>
> > counter my scenario described above and in many places and threads. Can I
>
> >
>
> > then assume no one has found any thing to counter my scenario?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Chris
>
>
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression, like many conspiracy
>
> theorists, that people have to prove your theories wrong. That's not how
>
> debate and reason work. The onus is on you to prove your imaginings.
>
> For instance, if I posited that Martians killed JFK with Death Rays from
>
> space and faked all the evidence, it would be my responsibility to provide
>
> some proof for that theory. If you could provide some evidence for your
>
> imaginings, that would be wonderful. If thousands of people got together
>
> to kill JFK and fake all the evidence that proves that Oswald was guilty,
>
> surely there must be tons of proof.
>

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I'm producing a 'theory'
here. Not true. I'm making statements and presenting evidence, NOT a
theory. I've mentioned the facts and testimony and pointed out what they
mean, and if there is disagreement, I would expect logical minded people
to come up with facts and evidence, maybe testimony, to counter my
information, and perhaps even show us a different scenario.

>
>
> My own standard of proof, and I don't believe that this is unreasonable,
>
> would be stuff like a conviction in a court of law, or a confession in
>
> open court, or even the tiniest hint of physical evidence.
>

Hmm. Did you realize that most criminals want to hide their crimes
where possible? They want to leave as little evidence as possible too?
I'm working toward the conviction, but there must always be a first
conviction, so you'll have to bear with me and check out my facts and see
where you disagree.

>
>
> Surely these thousands of people involved in the conspiracy couldn't have
>
> been that through, right? There must be some evidence that wasn't
>
> changed, altered, or forged. And all of these people stuck with the
>
> conspiracy to the bitter end? Not one of these thousands of people had
>
> second thoughts, or a sudden attack of conscience? Or even got caught for
>
> another crime and decided to sell out their co-conspirators? Or decided
>
> they wanted to be the richest person in the world, made a deal for freedom
>
> by turning in some of the other conspirators, and sold their story for
>
> probably billions of dollars? There's a very old saying that's
>
> appropriate here, "Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are
>
> dead". There's no possible way that that many people could have gotten
>
> together to kill JFK and not one has ever talked to this day.

What thousands of people? Who misled you that there were thousands
involved? That's a typical nutter argument. When you're in a senior
position you are able to order others to do what you need and as long as
you come up with a reasonable excuse, they'll provide it for you. I would
guess (yes, guess) that about 20-30 people altogether were involved in the
murder with knowledge of what they were doing.

Now as to people talking, there's one guy, a former FBI agent that
talked. But when it's very late in a case, people don't pay as much
attention. And many involved would NOT talk because it would mean their
life, or at the least life in prison. The whole idea of a patsy is to let
the real shooters off the hook and let them get on with other projects.

Here's the former FBI agent talking of his experience:
http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc

Chris

[mainframetech]

Actually, the case against Oswald is full of holes. And even if the
evidence were used (it should all be kept out) it all had failed the chain
of custody rules. A good lawyer would have gotten him off easily. And if
they had proven his connection with CIA or FBI, he would have been even
more likely to get off as innocent. Someone should tell Marina to stop
telling everyone that Oswald liked JFK. It might turn the tide for him
too...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 6:58:43 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
>
> Again, your long post contains not one single reference to direct evidence
>
> of a person or persons altering evidence.
>
>
>
> Where does anyone say, "Yes, I saw Mr. X surgically altering JFK's body to
>
> create wounds that were not there before," or something to that effect?
>
> Same for the films and x-rays.
>
>
>
> Falsifying evidence is a crime. It requires PROOF.
>

Once again you're trying to get away without doing some work. If you had
read the Robinson statement, you would have seen him say that damage to
the head was done by the prosectors. In enumerating head wounds he saw on
the head, he noted "visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets
(as opposed to damage by pathologists)". His description of the head
wounds did NOT include the top of the head, meaning that was 'damage by
pathologists'.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3

Note that Robinson also drew a picture of the BOH and showed a 'large hole':

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4

He described it as being 'large as a baseball".
When he arrived earlier than expected, he saw they were in the middle of
what he described as "the gross examination of the head was beginning".

Now you need to use some common sense. NO criminal wants to let on as
to what they are doing or will do, if possible. Humes and Boswell knew
that what they did just after 6:35pm and before 7:30pm was wrong and they
worked to hide it from as many people as they could by ordering all
assistants out of the morgue area. At that time there was no one in the
gallery. Robinson wasn't familiar enough with what they were doing to rat
on them, he just thought it was how they did an autopsy. Different than
others he had seen.

Crimes are committed and then have to be pieced together as to what
happened, because often there are no witnesses, or the witnesses saw only
part of what happened. It's rare you get a witness that saw the whole
crime from beginning to end and will testify. I've supplied all that is
needed for a jury to convict. Not above, but through the days as I've
presented this scenario. And I must be right because you've offered NO
facts or evidence to the contrary. And nothing to disprove ANY of my
facts or quoted testimony.

>
>
> You are a prosecutor going into court saying, "I have witnesses who saw a
>
> wound on the back of the head, several inches away from the side of the
>
> head. No, none of my witnesses actually measured the position of the
>
> wound, as the autopsy doctors did, but if they say "back of the head,"
>
> that's good enough for me. No, I don't have any witnesses who actually saw
>
> the alterations being done, but it must have been those autopsy doctors.
>
> They are guilty of falsifying evidence."
>
>
>
> You would be lucky if all that happened was that the judge laughed you out
>
> of court. You would probably be fired.
>

Sorry, you've made another error. I haven't suggested that alteration
was done on the BOH of JFK, only that the photos that show NO 'large hole'
were faked. You see, the problem is that the 'large hole' in the BOH was
made by a bullet exiting from an entry point in the right forehead. The
debris (blood, brain matter, fluids) all went flying back and to the left
and struck Bobby Hargis and officer Martin who were riding their
motorcycles to the rear and left of the limo. See their WC testimony.

>
>
> People disagreeing about the exact position of a bloody head wound,
>
> covered by hair and brain matter, when none of them except the autopsy
>
> doctors lifted the hair and scalp to examine and measure the wound, is not
>
> proof. It is innuendo.

Don't be ridiculous. Many of the witnesses to the 'large hole' saw very
little of any 'flap' of scalp covering the hole. And many have drawn what
they saw, which has been shown to you (if you looked). You're working
without a net again. Do the work to find some facts and evidence.
Saying that a few witnesses didn't agree on an 'EXACT POSITION' of a head
wound, and not showing what you're talking about is the same as innuendo.
A suggestion without solid proof.

Are you going to say that the following people are all giving very
different positions for the head wound in the BOH?
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3930.0

Scroll down halfway and there is a montage of those people.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

It'a called Reductio ad Absurdum.

[mainframetech]

What is? Your comment? Since there's no explanation for it, one must
assume.

[OHLeeRedux]

Yes, Chris, you do have a theory, whether or not you want to admit it.

All facts require interpretation. There is absolutely no such thing as a
bare fact that has not been interpreted by a human mind. We receive
millions of bits of sensory input every minute of our lives. In order to
make any sense at all of the world, our brains must select and arrange
that data into higher level patterns, and those patterns have been formed
throughout our lives, for the most part unconsciously.

You have chosen to focus on a certain set of images on film, and on verbal
statements by a certain set of people. That is one hell of a lot of bits
of information. Your mind has taken those billions of bits of data and
reduced them to patterns of thought that your conscious mind can
comprehend.

And your particular way of arranging and interpreting that data is . . .
Yes, you guessed it, a THEORY.

[mainframetech]

Nope, wrong again, that's not my guess. Under that concept everything
thought of by humans is a theory. Not sensible. That would mean that
your concept of my thinking is just a theory and should be treated only as
far as it goes.

Humans have developed differences between what is thought of as fact,
and theory. Fact can be looked at and there is general agreement what it
is or what it means. Some things are not as sure or generally agreed
upon, and so you get into the levels of gray between fact and theory.
Fact is an 'it is', and theory is an 'it may be' without the general
agreement or obvious meaning.

In what I've presented here, you'll find fact, and testimony that has
the ring of truth, or fact. Where I fill between them it should usually
be obvious, but ask and I will be happy to explain what my meaning is and
whether I'm filling in or using facts. It's rare that murderers make it
clear and obvious what they did during their crime, and usually law
enforcement has to figure it out from the facts and clues left after the
criminals have gone.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Chris,

I said you have a theory. I never said you had "just" a theory. The word
"just" is often thrown in to minimalize and disparage the noun that
follows it.

What I said is that all sensory input, images on film and verbal
statements for instance, require interpretation before they make sense to
the conscious mind. You interpret the data based on many factors,
including preconceived and unconscious influences.

You have theories which shape your interpretation of data. I have theories
which shape my interpretation of data. The best we can do is widen the
lense, step back and construct a theory which takes in ALL the data that
we have at our disposal, not just a particular set of inferences that we
have chosen to focus on.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are arguing for Gestalt reality, that reality is different for each
person. That's a little too advanced for this group.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.

There was a discrepancy among the 24 doctors who attended the wounded
President in TR1. At most only 25% of those doctors located the massive
head wound low on the back of the head in the occipital bone of the skull.
Several doctors got it exactly right compared to the Zapruder film and
autopsy report, and some got it almost right. Remarkably 4 of the ER
doctors thought there was a wound on the left side of the head. As one of
the prominent ER doctors later explained, their primary job is to save the
patient by any means available, not conduct an autopsy.

> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.

Not remotely possible.

> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.

According to CTs the pathology team was incompetent to conduct an autopsy
on gunshot wounds, while at the same time brilliant plastic surgeons with
expertise in reconstruction surgery.

> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.

The only rational conclusion.

> I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
> hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
> provides the most reasonable answer to this question.

Yes it does. William of Ockham was a practical observer of human nature.

[mainframetech]

Welp, you can call it anything you want. It still sounds to me like
you have a 'theory' about my facts and quoted testimony, and the answers I
arrived at. I choose to say that I have drawn my scenario from those
elements, and if anyone chooses to ask about where any one element comes
from, I'll be happy to tell them, with links, and where appropriate, with
logic and common sense.

If you don't think any of the facts or elements I've presented are
correct, or lead to the wrong conclusion, let me know, I'll be happy to
discuss it, ans make corrections where it fits.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Above there is an assumption that only 25% of the doctors at Parkland
say that JFK had a 'large hole' in the BOH located in the occipital area
of the skull. That is patently false. A good number of them located the
wound there ,and if they located it an inch higher in the
occiputo-parietal area, that still counts as a correct location of the
wound when you're really measuring more for size than location. In
reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%. The first
paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right", so the
writer apparently knew that much.

I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list
when I get the 41 I need. As a challenge to Claviger who seems not to
believe the 'over 40' statement, I suggest he try and find even ONE more
than the 3 prosectors at Bethesda who saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the
BOH as the autopsy report said...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Don't make a claim with an exact percentage in it unless you have
the data to prove it.

> of the skull. That is patently false. A good number of them located the
> wound there ,and if they located it an inch higher in the
> occiputo-parietal area, that still counts as a correct location of the
> wound when you're really measuring more for size than location. In

The problem is that you lump those who claim a small entrance wound with
those who claim a large exit wound.

> reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%. The first
> paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right", so the
> writer apparently knew that much.
>
> I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
> in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list

Sheer nonsense.

[mainframetech]

He doesn't have the data, because the number would be higher.

>
>
> > of the skull. That is patently false. A good number of them located the
>
> > wound there ,and if they located it an inch higher in the
>
> > occiputo-parietal area, that still counts as a correct location of the
>
> > wound when you're really measuring more for size than location. In
>
>
>
> The problem is that you lump those who claim a small entrance wound with
>
> those who claim a large exit wound.
>

Ah. You think you can name ANY at Parkland that said there was ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH? Then name them. I've been asking that for a while now and no one has been able to do it, yet many can name at least a few that saw a 'large hole'.

>
>
> > reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%. The first
>
> > paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right", so the
>
> > writer apparently knew that much.
>
> >
>
> > I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
>
> > in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list
>
>
>
> Sheer nonsense.
>

As is a comment with no explanation or backup of any kind. Ignored.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
>
>

> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
>
> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
>
>
> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>
> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
>
>

> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>
> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
>
>

> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>
> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
>
>
>
>

> I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
>
> hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
>
> provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>
>
>

> The first answer requires there to have been a conspiracy involving
>
> members of the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, and most likely members
>
> of JFK's inner circle, including his personal physician. The body would
>
> have to have been removed from the coffin and surgically altered at some
>
> time during the flight from Dallas to D.C., without Jackie knowing about
>
> it -- unless she were involved in the conspiracy.
>
>
>
> The second possibility involves high ranking officers of the U.S. Navy
>
> deliberately falsifying evidence in a major crime, AND knowing exactly how
>
> to alter that evidence, within hours of the crime, in a way that would
>
> prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
>
>
>
> The third possibility requires us to assume that the Parkland doctors were
>
> trying to save the president's life. They saw him lying on his back with
>
> brain matter in his hair. They did not lift the hair and scalp to look at
>
> the skull. They inferred from what they saw that there was a large wound
>
> in the back of his head. In the 1980s, while filming a PBS documentary,
>
> the Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they
>
> said that they were consistent with what they saw in the emergency room.
>
>
>
> Which answer requires us to make the most simple, common sense
>
> assumptions?
>
>
>
> I would say that number three wins by a mile.

There's an interesting argument made by John Canal over at Washington
Decoded. He claims that some of the autopsy photos were taken AFTER the
morticians began their work on JFK. The original plan was to have an open
casket and so they were preparing the President for the viewing.

As such they altered the location (lifting the scalp) of the entrance of
the back head wound moving the entrance up from the EOP to the cowlick.

So, one of the possible problems with the discrepancies in the autopsy
photos and what the doctors, including the prosectors, is that the photos
were done AFTER the autopsy and during or after the cosmetic changes.

More here: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html

[mainframetech]

Check the ARRB sworn testimony of Tom Robinson, a mortician that worked
on the body. He listed the wounds that JFK had from the murder, then
noted that other than those, the prosectors did further damage to the
skull. He drew pictures of the wound in the BOH and the small side of
head wound for the ARRB.

Here's 2 of his drawings:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=3

The intimate work that had to be done by the morticians would turn up
the real wounds in the head, and not some 'moved' wound. They had to stuff
the skull with material to keep it from collapsing, especially around the
right eye.

You can see from the real wounds noted by Robinson that selection 2 in
the choices above would be a better guess, based on testimony from people
involved in the autopsy, other than the prosectors.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. We believe that Knudsen took a second set of
photos, not of the autopsy, but after the autopsy for the family.

> As such they altered the location (lifting the scalp) of the entrance of
> the back head wound moving the entrance up from the EOP to the cowlick.
>

Unnecessary.

[OHLeeRedux]

Chris,

You keep using the word "prosectors."

A prosector is a person who dissects a cadaver in preparation for
demonstration at a medical school or hospital.

Your implication seems to be that these nefarious prosectors dissected the
president's body in preparation for an autopsy that was intended to show
that the man arrested just a few hours earlier was the lone assassin.

Really?

They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
fired?

Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
false evidence on the body?

The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
the conspiracy speculation has run.

[Robert Harris]

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> "Not really"? Does that mean they did or they didn't? In fact, the
> Parkland doctors said the autopsy evidence was consistent with what they
> saw. Watch the documentary.

As I already told you, Dr. Boswell explained the autopsists pulled the
scalp up and over the massive damge to the back of the head, so that it
could not be seen in the photos.

I already directed you to the article in which he is cited verbatim.
PLEASE READ IT.


http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

You left out option 4.
Option 4. You don't know what the Hell you are talking about.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/4/13 1:43 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> As to the Moon Landings, anyone with an interest in applied science
> knows they were real. To fake them would cost as much as doing the real
> landings.
>
> Chris


While it's a pleasant surprise that Chris accepts the reality of the
moon landings, his stated reason for doing so has got to be the weakest
anyone could come up with.

After all, the moon landing denialists claim that going to the moon was
simply impossible. They think no amount of money could have made it happen.

Chris's explanation conjures the hilarious scenario of a room full of
NASA and government officials comparing the cost of actually going to
the moon against that of faking it and deciding, hell, might as well go.


/sm

[Lanny]

On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:23:19 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:

>
>
> They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
>
> many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
>
> already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
>
> fired?
>
>
>
> Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
>
> obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
>
> false evidence on the body?
>
>
>
> The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
>
> the conspiracy speculation has run.

Not only that, but the whole absurd notion of body alteration only
exacerbates a "conspiracy proof" that the buffs continue to hammer to this
day -- the alleged differences in the wounds as seen at Parkland vs.
Bethesda.

Can you imagine if Dr. Perry hadn't started a tracheotomy and Bethesda had
received JFK's body with an apparent entry wound in the President's throat
with no medically demonstrable exit? Why Dr. Humes or Boswell would have
had no choice but to do a trache anyway!

Let's call this exhibit 53 for the world's dumbest conspiracy ever.

Yo, guys!! Parkland sees the body FIRST! Not much point in screwing around
with it afterwards, ya think?

[mainframetech]

The HSCA did an interview with Knudsen in 1978. He did not mention
anything about him taking photos of the autopsy. He DID get involved with
a set of photos that Berkley and the SS gave him to have developed then
later to have copies made. His recollection was that there were about 10
photos in the set and that he had more than 2 sets of copies of the set
made. He remembers the BOH wound being present in the photos. So Knudsen
did NOT take any photos of the autopsy, he simply had handled a set and
made copies of it.

>
>
> > As such they altered the location (lifting the scalp) of the entrance of
>
> > the back head wound moving the entrance up from the EOP to the cowlick.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Unnecessary.
>
>
>
> > So, one of the possible problems with the discrepancies in the autopsy
>
> > photos and what the doctors, including the prosectors, is that the photos
>
> > were done AFTER the autopsy and during or after the cosmetic changes.
>
> >
>
> > More here: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html
>
> >

There were 2 sets of photos that were made at some point. The original
set had the BOH with a 'large hole' in it, and the other set (called the
Fox set) had an altered BOH photo showing the BOH with nothing on it but
hair, part dry and part wet. The first set above had clean background and
seemed more 'set up' and the body and the area of the body was clean by
comparison to the Fox set. That set seems to have disappeared.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:23:19 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:

> Chris,
>
>
>
> You keep using the word "prosectors."
>
>
>
> A prosector is a person who dissects a cadaver in preparation for
>
> demonstration at a medical school or hospital.
>

Wfrong again. You need to do better research. You found a limited
definition, whereas I used on a bit wider in purpose. Here's the rundown
on the word 'prosector':

pro·sec·tor (pr-sktr)
n.

One who dissects cadavers for anatomical instruction or pathological
examination.

[Latin prsector, anatomist, from prsecre, to cut off, up : pr-, before; see pro-1 + secre, to cut; see sector.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Note that the word can be used for "pathological examination". Please try to keep it in mind, I don't doubt I will have to use it again.

>
>
> Your implication seems to be that these nefarious prosectors dissected the
>
> president's body in preparation for an autopsy that was intended to show
>
> that the man arrested just a few hours earlier was the lone assassin.
>
>

I didn't say they dissected the body. I said they worked on the head as
per Tom Robinson who arrived early and saw them doing it. He saw them
remove the brain also, which is normally an assistants job, but the
assistants had all been kicked out of the room, based on their
testimony.

>
> Really?
>
Yep, really. I know it's a bit of work, but I recommend checking the testimony of those involved to avoid these surprises.

>
>
> They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
>
> many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
>
> already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
>
> fired?
>

Nope. Won't do. They knew what was wanted...to show that the shooter
was behind and above, which was known to the conspirators before hand, who
knew who was their 'patsy' and where they would want shots to come from.

>
>
> Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
>
> obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
>
> false evidence on the body?
>

Let's not get overly dramatic. Some of the evidence they simply ignored
and never mentioned. The main wound was the head wound which came into the
right forehead and out the 'large hole' in the BOH, which had to be dealt
with. They used the excuse of removing the brain to damage the top and
some of the side of the head so that they might say a bullet came down
through the top of head, and many of the WC faithful (being ready to
believe anything from the WC) have taken that up as some kind of fact.

>
>
> The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
> the conspiracy speculation has run.

But look at the nonsense that you believe, along with the WC faithful.
'Single bullet' and 'lone nut' wacky theories from the WC! If the case
had never happened and you gave all that baloney to a seasoned detective,
he's laugh at you outright!

It is really amazing how easily folks can be fooled by using a fake
photo instead of a verbal story. Seeing is believing!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2013 5:26 PM, Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:23:19 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
>>
>> many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
>>
>> already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
>>
>> fired?
>>
>>
>>
>> Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
>>
>> obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
>>
>> false evidence on the body?
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
>>
>> the conspiracy speculation has run.
>
>
> Not only that, but the whole absurd notion of body alteration only
> exacerbates a "conspiracy proof" that the buffs continue to hammer to this
> day -- the alleged differences in the wounds as seen at Parkland vs.
> Bethesda.
>
> Can you imagine if Dr. Perry hadn't started a tracheotomy and Bethesda had
> received JFK's body with an apparent entry wound in the President's throat
> with no medically demonstrable exit? Why Dr. Humes or Boswell would have

Perry theorized that the bullet exited the head.

> had no choice but to do a trache anyway!
>

No way. The General would have stopped them.

> Let's call this exhibit 53 for the world's dumbest conspiracy ever.
>
> Yo, guys!! Parkland sees the body FIRST! Not much point in screwing around
> with it afterwards, ya think?
>

It doesn't matter how dumb it is, criminals will do it anyway.

[claviger]

mainframetech,

> Above there is an assumption that only 25% of the doctors at Parkland
> say that JFK had a 'large hole' in the BOH located in the occipital area
> of the skull. That is patently false.

Quite correct based on information previously posted. You participated in those discussions so I assume you read this information.

> A good number of them located the wound there,

I give you 24 doctors and you give me “a good number”?

> and if they located it an inch higher in the occiputo-parietal area,
> that still counts as a correct location of the wound when you're
> really measuring more for size than location.

Nope, won't do. You defended the McClellend drawing as an accurate representation of the back of the head wound, down low in the occipital bone. Which means any doctor claiming occipital-parietal is not supportive of that location, therefore you can't borrow those witnesses to pump up your numbers. Either accept or reject the McClelland drawing. Which is it?

> In reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%.

Not even close.

> The first paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right",
> so the writer apparently knew that much.

What writer?

> I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
> in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list
> when I get the 41 I need.

About time. You've been throwing around the 40 number for awhile. Obviously you saw it on a website that didn't support the number. Probably something you read by Aguilar.

> As a challenge to Claviger who seems not to believe the 'over 40'
> statement,

I can only find 24 doctors who showed up in TR1. Are you claiming 40 doctors in TR1?

> I suggest he try and find even ONE more than the 3 prosectors at
> Bethesda who saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH as the autopsy
> report said...:)

Only 3 prosectors worked on the body.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:26:34 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:23:19 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
>
> >
>
> > many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
>
> >
>
> > already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
>
> >
>
> > fired?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
>
> >
>
> > obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
>
> >
>
> > false evidence on the body?
>
> >
>

People that knew the scenario that had been set up knew enough to tell the prosectors what generally to do.

> >
>
> >
>
> > The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
>
> >
>
> > the conspiracy speculation has run.
>
>

So you think that sworn testimony was nonsense? That a person seeing Humes and Boswell messing with the head after kicking everyone out of the autopsy room, a highly suspect act, was lying or mistaken? Or crazy? Trouble is, it all fits so well that you need to at least understand it, whether you believe it or not. And senior people were in charge, though they weren't at the autopsy table.

>
>
>
> Not only that, but the whole absurd notion of body alteration only
>
> exacerbates a "conspiracy proof" that the buffs continue to hammer to this
>
> day -- the alleged differences in the wounds as seen at Parkland vs.
>
> Bethesda.
>

The differences were there and anyone can see them, meaning that people that act as if they haven't seen them are deluded. They are NOT 'alleged differences'. Here they are. First, the Parkland view:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

And then the Bethesda view:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Seeing is believing...if you don't, then don't believe the autopsy photos either.

>
>
> Can you imagine if Dr. Perry hadn't started a tracheotomy and Bethesda had
>
> received JFK's body with an apparent entry wound in the President's throat
>
> with no medically demonstrable exit? Why Dr. Humes or Boswell would have
>
> had no choice but to do a trache anyway!
>
>
>
> Let's call this exhibit 53 for the world's dumbest conspiracy ever.
>
>
>
> Yo, guys!! Parkland sees the body FIRST! Not much point in screwing around
>
> with it afterwards, ya think?

Ridicule is the last hideout of the desperate.

All the reason in the world. With photos and film that agree (somewhat) with the autopsy, the suckers would say that the Parkland staff were lying or mistaken, both of which have happened as expected by the conspirators!

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, as we know by now, the conspirators were psychic. Or perhaps they
had hypnotized the entire Parkland staff beforehand. Why wouldn't a CT
believe such a thing is possible?

[Lanny]

I would have hoped that a conspiracy to assassinate the President of the
United States and especially any associated conspiracy to tamper with
evidence after the fact would have a strategy and organization worthy of
the gravity of the crime. Seems like post-assassination specifically
there was a disproportionate reliance on sheer dumb luck.

You don't agree?

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:03:18 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:13:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:23:12 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> > > > initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> > > > that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
> >

Mind you, all the other people at Bethesda that saw the BOH said there
was a 'large hole' there. And there were more than 3 of them. And the
LNers don't think it's odd that everyone including the mortician that
handled the body saw a large hole, and the prosectors saw only a small
bullet hole. Not even a moment of wonder at that!

>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There was a discrepancy among the 24 doctors who attended the wounded>
>
> > > President in TR1. At most only 25% of those doctors located the massive
>
> > > head wound low on the back of the head in the occipital bone of the skull.
>
> > > Several doctors got it exactly right compared to the Zapruder film and
>
> > > autopsy report, and some got it almost right. Remarkably 4 of the ER
>
> > > doctors thought there was a wound on the left side of the head. As one of
>
> > > the prominent ER doctors later explained, their primary job is to save the
>
> > > patient by any means available, not conduct an autopsy.
>
> > >

Try 2 of them, one of whom wasn't even there (Grossman). If 4, list
them please. And where does the number 24 come from? Not enough room in
the ER for that many.

>
> > > > The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from >
>
> > > > this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
> >
>
> > > > 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>
> > > > and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
> >
>
> > > Not remotely possible.
>
> >
>
> > > > 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>
> > > > photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
> > >
>
> > > According to CTs the pathology team was incompetent to conduct an autopsy
>
> > > on gunshot wounds, while at the same time brilliant plastic surgeons with
>
> > > expertise in reconstruction surgery.
>
> >

False. I haven't heard anyone say any plastic surgery occurred. It
wasn't necessary. The damage to the head that Humes and Boswell did was
watched by the mortician when they thought they had cleared the room.
That was under testimony.

>
> > > > 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>
> > > > JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
> >

'Precisely' is relative. In this case, seeing a large wound on the BOH
may be high, or may be low, or a bit more left or right, but the general
agreement of a 'large hole' remains and trying to say that over 40 people
lied or were mistaken is foolish when you consider most of those witnesses
were medically trained staff who are taught to describe clearly what they
see, or a patient's life may be lost.

Please show where you got the number 24 please. I don't think you could
get than many into the ER at Parkland.

>
> > and if they located it an inch higher in the occiputo-parietal area,
>
> > that still counts as a correct location of the wound when you're
>
> > really measuring more for size than location.
>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. You defended the McClellend drawing as an accurate representation of the back of the head wound, down low in the occipital bone. Which means any doctor claiming occipital-parietal is not supportive of that location, therefore you can't borrow those witnesses to pump up your numbers. Either accept or reject the McClelland drawing. Which is it?
>
>

It wasn't a 'McClelland' drawing. He agreed with it, but someone else
drew it. And you've never heard me say that that drawing is an "accurate"
drawing, though it is representative of the many drawings we've seen, all
of which show a 'large hole' in the BOH.

>
> > In reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%.
>
>
>
> Not even close.
>
>
>
> > The first paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right",
>
> > so the writer apparently knew that much.
>
>
>
> What writer?
>

The writer that wrote it...:)

>
>
> > I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
>
> > in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list
>
> > when I get the 41 I need.
>
>
>
> About time. You've been throwing around the 40 number for awhile. Obviously you saw it on a website that didn't support the number. Probably something you read by Aguilar.
>
>

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I've listed more than 40 in other threads, but didn't
put in the backup for each one, which I'm doing now. While you attempt to
discredit my 0ver 40 figure, have you taken up my challenge to find even
ONE more person that SAW ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH besides the
prosecters?

From my own reading of testimony and government reports I got the count
of 'over 40'. While Aguilar is a good researcher, I haven't read that
many of his articles. I can tell a good researcher though. The LNers
will get very nasty about a person, and that almost always is because that
person has struck a blow for truth in the case.

>
> > As a challenge to Claviger who seems not to believe the 'over 40'
>
> > statement,
>
>
>
> I can only find 24 doctors who showed up in TR1. Are you claiming 40 doctors in TR1?
>

Your claim of 24 doctors in the ER is too high by my count. Can you
name them? Or say where you came across the number 24? That many
couldn't fit in the room and would be climbing over each other just to get
in, with 3 or more nurses there too.

>
>
> > I suggest he try and find even ONE more than the 3 prosectors at
>
> > Bethesda who saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH as the autopsy
>
> > report said...:)
>
>
>
> Only 3 prosectors worked on the body.

So what? Many people were there, and go ahead and include the folks
from Parkland too in your search. And include also the morticians that
handled the body as intimately as the prosectors.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I believe when they formulated the plan to do the job, they had much of
it figured out, like the guy in the FBI who would grab and record all
evidence, and who was going to be the patsy and where he would be
situated, and then they knew for sure with more than one shooter, but only
one patsy, they also needed to get the body out of Dallas and into safe
hands that they controlled, and the military like Walter Reed or Bethesda
were the right places where they could order the military pathologists as
to what they would find.

Knowing that they had the resources of the whole US government if they
wanted it, and knowing that in many agencies there were Kennedy haters,
they felt they could handle whatever came up, and indeed they did.

There was some dumb luck, but they had ways to deal with those things
too, if necessary. Though much was done in haste, and many mistakes were
made, by continuing the effort to cover up, they were able to stay up with
the various kinks that appeared and to this day, many believe some of the
tripe they put together, though with growing technology more is being
found out, especially with film and photos.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <74ae6a21-425b-48cc...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
says...

>
>This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.

I find it amusing that this factoid is still floating around. The HSCA
lied on this topic (see Volume 7, pages 37-38)

Not a single poster here addressed this.

When you *start* with an incorrect factoid, you end up with nonsense.

>The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
>this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
>1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>

>2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>

>3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
>

>I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
>hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
>provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>

>The first answer requires there to have been a conspiracy involving
>members of the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, and most likely members
>of JFK's inner circle, including his personal physician. The body would
>have to have been removed from the coffin and surgically altered at some
>time during the flight from Dallas to D.C., without Jackie knowing about
>it -- unless she were involved in the conspiracy.
>
>The second possibility involves high ranking officers of the U.S. Navy
>deliberately falsifying evidence in a major crime, AND knowing exactly how
>to alter that evidence, within hours of the crime, in a way that would
>prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
>
>The third possibility requires us to assume that the Parkland doctors were
>trying to save the president's life. They saw him lying on his back with
>brain matter in his hair. They did not lift the hair and scalp to look at
>the skull. They inferred from what they saw that there was a large wound
>in the back of his head. In the 1980s, while filming a PBS documentary,
>the Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they
>said that they were consistent with what they saw in the emergency room.
>
>Which answer requires us to make the most simple, common sense
>assumptions?
>
>I would say that number three wins by a mile.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/14/2013 12:15 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <74ae6a21-425b-48cc...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
> says...
>>
>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
>
> I find it amusing that this factoid is still floating around. The HSCA
> lied on this topic (see Volume 7, pages 37-38)
>
> Not a single poster here addressed this.
>

Silly you. We have discussed the authenticity of the autopsy photos and
X-rays thousands of times. Where have you been?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/14/2013 8:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:03:18 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:13:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:23:12 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>>
>>>>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>>
>>>>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>>
>>>
>
> Mind you, all the other people at Bethesda that saw the BOH said there
> was a 'large hole' there. And there were more than 3 of them. And the

Not true. You are misrepresenting historical facts to push a political
agenda.

> LNers don't think it's odd that everyone including the mortician that
> handled the body saw a large hole, and the prosectors saw only a small
> bullet hole. Not even a moment of wonder at that!
>

Not true. They diagrammed a HUGE hole.

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> There was a discrepancy among the 24 doctors who attended the wounded>
>>
>>>> President in TR1. At most only 25% of those doctors located the massive
>>
>>>> head wound low on the back of the head in the occipital bone of the skull.
>>
>>>> Several doctors got it exactly right compared to the Zapruder film and
>>
>>>> autopsy report, and some got it almost right. Remarkably 4 of the ER
>>
>>>> doctors thought there was a wound on the left side of the head. As one of
>>
>>>> the prominent ER doctors later explained, their primary job is to save the
>>
>>>> patient by any means available, not conduct an autopsy.
>>
>>>>
>
> Try 2 of them, one of whom wasn't even there (Grossman). If 4, list
> them please. And where does the number 24 come from? Not enough room in
> the ER for that many.
>
>
>>
>>>>> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from >
>>
>>>>> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>>
>>>>> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Not remotely possible.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>>
>>>>> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> According to CTs the pathology team was incompetent to conduct an autopsy
>>
>>>> on gunshot wounds, while at the same time brilliant plastic surgeons with
>>
>>>> expertise in reconstruction surgery.
>>
>>>
>
> False. I haven't heard anyone say any plastic surgery occurred. It

But you haven't read much.

> wasn't necessary. The damage to the head that Humes and Boswell did was
> watched by the mortician when they thought they had cleared the room.
> That was under testimony.
>
>>
>>>>> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>>
>>>>> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>>
>>>
>
> 'Precisely' is relative. In this case, seeing a large wound on the BOH
> may be high, or may be low, or a bit more left or right, but the general
> agreement of a 'large hole' remains and trying to say that over 40 people
> lied or were mistaken is foolish when you consider most of those witnesses
> were medically trained staff who are taught to describe clearly what they
> see, or a patient's life may be lost.
>

ER doctors are not taught to describe clearly what they see.
The are not qualified to make forensic determinations.

Only in your mind.

> of 'over 40'. While Aguilar is a good researcher, I haven't read that
> many of his articles. I can tell a good researcher though. The LNers
> will get very nasty about a person, and that almost always is because that
> person has struck a blow for truth in the case.
>

So someone MUST be right ONLY because he is attacked?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, stop being silly. They got away with it. The Phillipine Army got
away with assassinating Aquino even with their lame cover story of the
escaped barefoot criminal. They got away with it long enough to
accomplish what they wanted to accomplish.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/13/2013 11:05 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:26:34 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
>> On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:23:19 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
>>
>>>
>>
>>> many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
>>
>>>
>>
>>> already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
>>
>>>
>>
>>> fired?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
>>
>>>
>>
>>> obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
>>
>>>
>>
>>> false evidence on the body?
>>
>>>
>>
> People that knew the scenario that had been set up knew enough to tell the prosectors what generally to do.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
>>
>>>
>>
>>> the conspiracy speculation has run.
>>
>>
> So you think that sworn testimony was nonsense? That a person seeing Humes and Boswell messing with the head after kicking everyone out of the autopsy room, a highly suspect act, was lying or mistaken? Or crazy? Trouble is, it all fits so well that you need to at least understand it, whether you believe it or not. And senior people were in charge, though they weren't at the autopsy table.
>

You don't want anyone at all in the room when you take X-rays with a
portable machine.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, October 14, 2013 9:19:50 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 8:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:03:18 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:13:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:23:12 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> > Mind you, all the other people at Bethesda that saw the BOH said there
>
> > was a 'large hole' there. And there were more than 3 of them. And the
>
>
>
> Not true. You are misrepresenting historical facts to push a political
>
> agenda.
>

Nope. Going to have to ignore your comment. No backup and no
explanation of what your talking about. And you've used that specific
comment many times before and not explained yourself. What is the
political agenda being served? How was it served by anything I said.
Yep, simply ignored.

>
>
> > LNers don't think it's odd that everyone including the mortician that
>
> > handled the body saw a large hole, and the prosectors saw only a small
>
> > bullet hole. Not even a moment of wonder at that!
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not true. They diagrammed a HUGE hole.
>
>

Yes, true. They diagrammed a huge hole in the top and side of the
skull. Not the old 'large hole' in the BOH.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> There was a discrepancy among the 24 doctors who attended the wounded>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> President in TR1. At most only 25% of those doctors located the massive
>
> >>
>
> >>>> head wound low on the back of the head in the occipital bone of the skull.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Several doctors got it exactly right compared to the Zapruder film and
>
> >>
>
> >>>> autopsy report, and some got it almost right. Remarkably 4 of the ER
>
> >>
>
> >>>> doctors thought there was a wound on the left side of the head. As one of
>
> >>
>
> >>>> the prominent ER doctors later explained, their primary job is to save the
>
> >>
>
> >>>> patient by any means available, not conduct an autopsy.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >
>
> > Try 2 of them, one of whom wasn't even there (Grossman). If 4, list
>
> > them please. And where does the number 24 come from? Not enough room in
>
> > the ER for that many.
>
> >

I see not answer to the above questions, so I must assume they were fake
comments.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Not remotely possible.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> According to CTs the pathology team was incompetent to conduct an autopsy
>
> >>
>
> >>>> on gunshot wounds, while at the same time brilliant plastic surgeons with
>
> >>
>
> >>>> expertise in reconstruction surgery.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> > False. I haven't heard anyone say any plastic surgery occurred. It
>
>
>
> But you haven't read much.
>

Stop interrupting with comments when they convey only nastiness and not
information on the case.

>
>
> > wasn't necessary. The damage to the head that Humes and Boswell did was
>
> > watched by the mortician when they thought they had cleared the room.
>
> > That was under testimony.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> > 'Precisely' is relative. In this case, seeing a large wound on the BOH
>
> > may be high, or may be low, or a bit more left or right, but the general
>
> > agreement of a 'large hole' remains and trying to say that over 40 people
>
> > lied or were mistaken is foolish when you consider most of those witnesses
>
> > were medically trained staff who are taught to describe clearly what they
>
> > see, or a patient's life may be lost.
>
> >
>
>
>
> ER doctors are not taught to describe clearly what they see.
>
> The are not qualified to make forensic determinations.
>

Don't be silly. Think a bit. Would YOU know a hole in the head, if you
saw it? Would a doctor (of ANY specialty) know if they saw a hole in the
head? Trying to be picky with comments of that type don't get us to a
resolution, they just waste time. Training for physicians is the same no
matter what specialty they settle for. Any doctor or nurse may have to
describe a wound to another, who might be the one to treat the wound. If
a mistake is made, the patient is at risk. I'm sure most medical
personnel are acutely aware of this.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> The only rational conclusion.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Yes it does. William of Ockham was a practical observer of human nature.
>
> >>

Nevertheless, Occam's Razor is simply a help when things get too
complicated, it is NOT a hard and fast rule that is guaranteed to be right
every time. It doesn't even rise to the level of a theory.

I see no reply here, so I must assume I was right about the number 24
being exaggerated for some reason.

>
> >>
>
> >>> and if they located it an inch higher in the occiputo-parietal area,
>
> >>
>
> >>> that still counts as a correct location of the wound when you're
>
> >>
>
> >>> really measuring more for size than location.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nope, won't do. You defended the McClellend drawing as an accurate representation of the back of the head wound, down low in the occipital bone. Which means any doctor claiming occipital-parietal is not supportive of that location, therefore you can't borrow those witnesses to pump up your numbers. Either accept or reject the McClelland drawing. Which is it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > It wasn't a 'McClelland' drawing. He agreed with it, but someone else
>
> > drew it. And you've never heard me say that that drawing is an "accurate"
>
> > drawing, though it is representative of the many drawings we've seen, all
>
> > of which show a 'large hole' in the BOH.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>> In reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not even close.
>
> >>

Yes, close.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The first paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right",
>
> >>
>
> >>> so the writer apparently knew that much.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What writer?
>
> >>
>
> > The writer that wrote it...:)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
>
> >>
>
> >>> in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list
>
> >>
>
> >>> when I get the 41 I need.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> About time. You've been throwing around the 40 number for awhile. Obviously you saw it on a website that didn't support the number. Probably something you read by Aguilar.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I've listed more than 40 in other threads, but didn't
>
> > put in the backup for each one, which I'm doing now. While you attempt to
>
> > discredit my 0ver 40 figure, have you taken up my challenge to find even
>
> > ONE more person that SAW ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH besides the
>
> > prosecters?
>
> >
>
> > From my own reading of testimony and government reports I got the count
>
>
>
> Only in your mind.
>

Try and be nice, and patient too. When I publish the list you can start
trying to discredit it right away...:)

>
>
> > of 'over 40'. While Aguilar is a good researcher, I haven't read that
>
> > many of his articles. I can tell a good researcher though. The LNers
>
> > will get very nasty about a person, and that almost always is because that
>
> > person has struck a blow for truth in the case.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So someone MUST be right ONLY because he is attacked?
>
>

Nope. You didn't read what I said carefully. Note that I used "almost
always" in that sentence.

>
> >>
>
> >>> As a challenge to Claviger who seems not to believe the 'over 40'
>
> >>
>
> >>> statement,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I can only find 24 doctors who showed up in TR1. Are you claiming 40 doctors in TR1?
>
> >>
>
> > Your claim of 24 doctors in the ER is too high by my count. Can you
>
> > name them? Or say where you came across the number 24? That many
>
> > couldn't fit in the room and would be climbing over each other just to get
>
> > in, with 3 or more nurses there too.
>
> >

I see no answer here, so I must assume that the number 24 was indeed
exaggerated.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I suggest he try and find even ONE more than the 3 prosectors at
>
> >>
>
> >>> Bethesda who saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH as the autopsy
>
> >>
>
> >>> report said...:)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Only 3 prosectors worked on the body.
>
> >
>
> > So what? Many people were there, and go ahead and include the folks
>
> > from Parkland too in your search. And include also the morticians that
>
> > handled the body as intimately as the prosectors.
>
> >

I'm waiting for anyone to take up the challenge. So far only one person
had the courage to take a shot at it, and came up with a lot of people
that had second hand knowledge. We need those first hand eyewitnesses.

>
Chris
>
> >

[mainframetech]

On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:50:14 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/13/2013 11:05 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:26:34 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:23:19 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> They already knew exactly where to place the wounds? They already knew how
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> many bullets and fragments had been recovered at the crime scene? They
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> already knew the angle and trajectory from which Patsy Lee was to have
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> fired?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Good Lord, the autopsy doctors didn't even know that the traceostomy had
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> obscured a bullet wound. How would they know where and how to manufacture
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> false evidence on the body?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> > People that knew the scenario that had been set up knew enough to tell the prosectors what generally to do.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The fact that anyone could believe such nonsense shows just how far afield
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> the conspiracy speculation has run.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > So you think that sworn testimony was nonsense? That a person seeing Humes and Boswell messing with the head after kicking everyone out of the autopsy room, a highly suspect act, was lying or mistaken? Or crazy? Trouble is, it all fits so well that you need to at least understand it, whether you believe it or not. And senior people were in charge, though they weren't at the autopsy table.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You don't want anyone at all in the room when you take X-rays with a
>
> portable machine.
>
>

If you had researched it, you would have already checked the X-ray
technician's testimony and found that he too had been dismissed from the
autopsy room, and he went to the 4th floor X-ray suite to wait for when he
was needed.

The room was cleared by Humes and Boswell to work on the body with no
interruptions and no witnesses. When Tom Robinson came in early, they
were in the middle of it and couldn't stop, and they had to finish up what
they were doing. But he remembered what he saw. He mistakenly thought he
had arrived in the middle of the autopsy, but he had really caught Humes
and Boswell red handed trying to make the body look like it was hit from
above and behind.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not only that, but the whole absurd notion of body alteration only
>
> >>
>
> >> exacerbates a "conspiracy proof" that the buffs continue to hammer to this
>
> >>
>
> >> day -- the alleged differences in the wounds as seen at Parkland vs.
>
> >>
>
> >> Bethesda.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The differences were there and anyone can see them, meaning that people that act as if they haven't seen them are deluded. They are NOT 'alleged differences'. Here they are. First, the Parkland view:
>
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> >
>
> > And then the Bethesda view:
>
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
>
> >
>
> > Seeing is believing...if you don't, then don't believe the autopsy photos either.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Can you imagine if Dr. Perry hadn't started a tracheotomy and Bethesda had
>
> >>
>
> >> received JFK's body with an apparent entry wound in the President's throat
>
> >>
>
> >> with no medically demonstrable exit? Why Dr. Humes or Boswell would have
>
> >>
>
> >> had no choice but to do a trache anyway!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Let's call this exhibit 53 for the world's dumbest conspiracy ever.
>
> >>

Couldn't have been too dumb, since many people support the wacky
theories of the WC. So the conspiracy worked and the criminals went their
way and had a good life.

[Anthony Marsh]

Never happened.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/15/2013 10:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, October 14, 2013 9:19:50 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 8:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:03:18 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:13:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:23:12 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Mind you, all the other people at Bethesda that saw the BOH said there
>>
>>> was a 'large hole' there. And there were more than 3 of them. And the
>>
>>
>>
>> Not true. You are misrepresenting historical facts to push a political
>>
>> agenda.
>>
>
> Nope. Going to have to ignore your comment. No backup and no
> explanation of what your talking about. And you've used that specific
> comment many times before and not explained yourself. What is the
> political agenda being served? How was it served by anything I said.
> Yep, simply ignored.
>

You can't use that cheap trick every time.
I said that you were wrong to say that all the other people that saw the
BOH said there was a large hole. No one in the ER saw the back of the head.

>>
>>
>>> LNers don't think it's odd that everyone including the mortician that
>>
>>> handled the body saw a large hole, and the prosectors saw only a small
>>
>>> bullet hole. Not even a moment of wonder at that!
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not true. They diagrammed a HUGE hole.
>>
>>
> Yes, true. They diagrammed a huge hole in the top and side of the
> skull. Not the old 'large hole' in the BOH.

There was no large hole in the BOH.

If you can't take criticism then don't post nonsense.

>>
>>
>>> wasn't necessary. The damage to the head that Humes and Boswell did was
>>
>>> watched by the mortician when they thought they had cleared the room.
>>
>>> That was under testimony.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 'Precisely' is relative. In this case, seeing a large wound on the BOH
>>
>>> may be high, or may be low, or a bit more left or right, but the general
>>
>>> agreement of a 'large hole' remains and trying to say that over 40 people
>>
>>> lied or were mistaken is foolish when you consider most of those witnesses
>>
>>> were medically trained staff who are taught to describe clearly what they
>>
>>> see, or a patient's life may be lost.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ER doctors are not taught to describe clearly what they see.
>>
>> The are not qualified to make forensic determinations.
>>
>
> Don't be silly. Think a bit. Would YOU know a hole in the head, if you
> saw it? Would a doctor (of ANY specialty) know if they saw a hole in the
> head? Trying to be picky with comments of that type don't get us to a
> resolution, they just waste time. Training for physicians is the same no
> matter what specialty they settle for. Any doctor or nurse may have to
> describe a wound to another, who might be the one to treat the wound. If
> a mistake is made, the patient is at risk. I'm sure most medical
> personnel are acutely aware of this.
>

But no doctor saw a hole in the BOH.
The hole that Bowron packed gauze into the front and top of the head,
not the back.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> The only rational conclusion.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Yes it does. William of Ockham was a practical observer of human nature.
>>
>>>>
> Nevertheless, Occam's Razor is simply a help when things get too
> complicated, it is NOT a hard and fast rule that is guaranteed to be right
> every time. It doesn't even rise to the level of a theory.
>

Are are replying to someone else's comments.

>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Above there is an assumption that only 25% of the doctors at Parkland
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> say that JFK had a 'large hole' in the BOH located in the occipital area
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> of the skull. That is patently false. A good number of them located the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> wound there ,and if they located it an inch higher in the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> occiputo-parietal area, that still counts as a correct location of the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> wound when you're really measuring more for size than location. In
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> reality the percent of those is much higher, more like 85%. The first
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> paragraph above also says "Several doctors got it exactly right", so the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> writer apparently knew that much.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I'm compiling the list of the over 40 people that saw the 'large hole'
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> in the BOH, and have gotten up to 33 so far, and will put out the list
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> when I get the 41 I need. As a challenge to Claviger who seems not to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> believe the 'over 40' statement, I suggest he try and find even ONE more
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> than the 3 prosectors at Bethesda who saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> BOH as the autopsy report said...:)
>>
>>
>>>>> Chris
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> mainframetech,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Above there is an assumption that only 25% of the doctors at Parkland
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> say that JFK had a 'large hole' in the BOH located in the occipital area
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> of the skull. That is patently false.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Quite correct based on information previously posted. You participated in those discussions so I assume you read this information.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> A good number of them located the wound there,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>> I give you 24 doctors and you give me �a good number�?

What list? From your imagination?

Never rely on witnesses.

>>
> Chris
>>
>>>
>
>

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:36:52 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 10:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 14, 2013 9:19:50 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 10/14/2013 8:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:03:18 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:13:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:23:12 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:04:35 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Mind you, all the other people at Bethesda that saw the BOH said there
>
> >>
>
> >>> was a 'large hole' there. And there were more than 3 of them. And the
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not true. You are misrepresenting historical facts to push a political
>
> >>
>
> >> agenda.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Nope. Going to have to ignore your comment. No backup and no
>
> > explanation of what your talking about. And you've used that specific
>
> > comment many times before and not explained yourself. What is the
>
> > political agenda being served? How was it served by anything I said.
>
> > Yep, simply ignored.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You can't use that cheap trick every time.
>
> I said that you were wrong to say that all the other people that saw the
>
> BOH said there was a large hole. No one in the ER saw the back of the head.
>
>

I'm not using a 'cheap trick', I'm responding to YOUR 'cheap trick' which you've used many times. Notice that your comment is an attempt to get away from discussion of your 'cheap trick'. Please explain what is the political agenda being served? How was it served by anything I said?

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> LNers don't think it's odd that everyone including the mortician that
>
> >>
>
> >>> handled the body saw a large hole, and the prosectors saw only a small
>
> >>
>
> >>> bullet hole. Not even a moment of wonder at that!
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not true. They diagrammed a HUGE hole.
>
> >>

At the BOH? I'll have to add them to my list of over 40.

>
> >>
>
> > Yes, true. They diagrammed a huge hole in the top and side of the
>
> > skull. Not the old 'large hole' in the BOH.
>
>
>
> There was no large hole in the BOH.
>
>

Sure there was. You just didn't know about it because you never listen to witnesses.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> There was a discrepancy among the 24 doctors who attended the wounded>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> President in TR1. At most only 25% of those doctors located the massive
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> head wound low on the back of the head in the occipital bone of the skull.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> Several doctors got it exactly right compared to the Zapruder film and
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> autopsy report, and some got it almost right. Remarkably 4 of the ER
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> doctors thought there was a wound on the left side of the head. As one of
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> the prominent ER doctors later explained, their primary job is to save the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> patient by any means available, not conduct an autopsy.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Try 2 of them, one of whom wasn't even there (Grossman). If 4, list
>
> >>
>
> >>> them please. And where does the number 24 come from? Not enough room in
>
> >>
>
> >>> the ER for that many.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>

> > I see no answer to the above questions, so I must assume they were fake

>
> > comments.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> Not remotely possible.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> According to CTs the pathology team was incompetent to conduct an autopsy
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> on gunshot wounds, while at the same time brilliant plastic surgeons with
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> expertise in reconstruction surgery.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> False. I haven't heard anyone say any plastic surgery occurred. It
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> But you haven't read much.
>
> >>
>
> > Stop interrupting with comments when they convey only nastiness and not
>
> > information on the case.
>
> >
>
>
>
> If you can't take criticism then don't post nonsense.
>
>

LOL! It was no criticism of me. You're off the reservation again.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> wasn't necessary. The damage to the head that Humes and Boswell did was
>
> >>
>
> >>> watched by the mortician when they thought they had cleared the room.
>
> >>
>
> >>> That was under testimony.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> 'Precisely' is relative. In this case, seeing a large wound on the BOH
>
> >>
>
> >>> may be high, or may be low, or a bit more left or right, but the general
>
> >>
>
> >>> agreement of a 'large hole' remains and trying to say that over 40 people
>
> >>
>
> >>> lied or were mistaken is foolish when you consider most of those witnesses
>
> >>
>
> >>> were medically trained staff who are taught to describe clearly what they
>
> >>
>
> >>> see, or a patient's life may be lost.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> ER doctors are not taught to describe clearly what they see.
>
> >>
>
> >> The are not qualified to make forensic determinations.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Don't be silly. Think a bit. Would YOU know a hole in the head, if you
>
> > saw it? Would a doctor (of ANY specialty) know if they saw a hole in the
>
> > head? Trying to be picky with comments of that type don't get us to a
>
> > resolution, they just waste time. Training for physicians is the same no
>
> > matter what specialty they settle for. Any doctor or nurse may have to
>
> > describe a wound to another, who might be the one to treat the wound. If
>
> > a mistake is made, the patient is at risk. I'm sure most medical
>
> > personnel are acutely aware of this.
>
> >
>
>
>
> But no doctor saw a hole in the BOH.
>
> The hole that Bowron packed gauze into the front and top of the head,
>
> not the back.
>

Nope. False. Here's some testimony from Nurse Bowron:
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole."

I can find NO other comment in her testimony as to 'packing' a wound of any kind. You've been scammed again. Here's the testimony so you can look yourself, and let me know if you finds anything about 'packing wounds'.

> >>>> I give you 24 doctors and you give me “a good number”?

Nope. A list with links in it so you can check the testimony an entry came from, what they said and the person's name and usually occupation too.

Are you saying that we cannot depend on anyone that said they saw a shooter in the 6th floor SE window? that Oswald wasn't found in a movie theatre? And many other things said by witnesses.
>
>
> >>
>
Chris
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> >

[Ben Holmes]

In article <525c25c7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 10/14/2013 12:15 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <74ae6a21-425b-48cc...@googlegroups.com>,
OHLeeRedux
>> says...
>>>
>>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>>
>>
>> I find it amusing that this factoid is still floating around. The HSCA
>> lied on this topic (see Volume 7, pages 37-38)
>>
>> Not a single poster here addressed this.
>>
>
>Silly you. We have discussed the authenticity of the autopsy photos and
>X-rays thousands of times. Where have you been?

Then I defy you to simply CITE the thread where the HSCA lied about the
Bethesda eyewitnesses disagreeing with the Parkland witnesses... as found
in Volume 7, pages 37-38

Should be quite easy to find, since a cite to the HSCA would have been a
necessity in any such debate.

I predict here and now that you won't produce such a cite...

[BT George]

Courage was not necessary. All that is needed is conviction as to what
constitutes the REAL best evidence---which is examination of the actual
damage to the body.

I know that per your theory, virtually everything in this case in the way
of hard evidence was faked. Therefore you will always find the tales of
witnesses who were in a highly frantic crisis situation and who only saw
the the head wounds when Kennedy's head was a bloody, gory, mess or who
only testified to what they saw years later, to be more compelling than
the best evidence one normally relies on to solve a crime.

However, though you are prepared to place almost implicit trust in the
testimony of large hole in BOH witnesses testimony, you are forced by your
rejection of the autopsy photo evidence to conclude that LOTS of other
persons were either evil, incompetent, or corrupt:

1) The original autopsists (and others) were evil tools of the conspiracy
who snuck around and altered the body---pretty masterfully it seems---in a
mere hour or less.

2) The following FPP's and other medical experts who examined the head
wounds + the HSCA experts who vetted the photos were ALL either too
incompetent to detect the fakery or were so influenced by the "evil"
government plotters that they sold out their integrity. Worse, all these
people stuck to their guns till their dying day or now well into their old
age.

3) You have to conclude that people like Chad Zimmerman and Larry
Sturdivan who have seen the photos and the NA were so biased or evil that
they couldn't see any evidence of fakery, even though they DID report
(quite unpopularly I might add) seeing discrepancies that contradicted the
findings of the FPP's regarding the entrance being closer to the Cowlick
vs. the EOP as per the original autopsist's report.

4) Strangely, you need to add some pro-CT persons like Cyril Wecht to the
list of incompetents or evil persons you don't trust either. He has
examined the original photos several times and---to my knowledge---has
never claimed to see fakery or any *clear* evidence to support shots
coming anywhere, but from behind. (He does think that the missing brain
is an issue and examination of it could have very well been the "smoking
gun" that proves forensically that there was a shot from elsewhere.)

Again your rejection of these as "small hole BOH witnesses" is based
solely on your conclusion that it is easier to believe a government
coordinated plot involving MANY persons being either evil, corrupt, and/or
grossly incompetent, than it is to doubt the word of a large number of
witnesses who either only saw the President's head when it was in truly
horrible condition (and under conditions of immense personal shock) or who
only began telling about seeing a "large hole in BOH" many years later.

It's an unsatifying choice either way, but I believe that a combo of
honest witness errors + a few who's memories could well have become
distorted over the decades or who may have merely decided it was time for
their 15 minutes of fame, is more likely than a wide-ranging plot against
the POTUS succeeding in corrupting so many persons (and for numerous
decades) into going along with it.

BT George

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:13:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <525c25c7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> >
>
> >On 10/14/2013 12:15 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> In article <74ae6a21-425b-48cc...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> OHLeeRedux
>
> >> says...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> >>> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> >>> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I find it amusing that this factoid is still floating around. The HSCA
>
> >> lied on this topic (see Volume 7, pages 37-38)
>
> >>
>
> >> Not a single poster here addressed this.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Silly you. We have discussed the authenticity of the autopsy photos and
>
> >X-rays thousands of times. Where have you been?
>
>
>
>
>
> Then I defy you to simply CITE the thread where the HSCA lied about the
>
> Bethesda eyewitnesses disagreeing with the Parkland witnesses... as found
>
> in Volume 7, pages 37-38
>
>
>
> Should be quite easy to find, since a cite to the HSCA would have been a
>
> necessity in any such debate.
>
>
>
> I predict here and now that you won't produce such a cite...
>
>

Is this what you're going on about:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

Scroll down to #155 where the HSCA is stating that all 26 witnesses
agreed that the autopsy photos were correct and the Parkland people were
wrong. Naturally that was proven wrong later.

[mainframetech]

A few changes to some photos (easy to do) and the whole bunch went
along with what they THOUGHT they saw. No problem.

>
> 3) You have to conclude that people like Chad Zimmerman and Larry
>
> Sturdivan who have seen the photos and the NA were so biased or evil that
>
> they couldn't see any evidence of fakery, even though they DID report
>
> (quite unpopularly I might add) seeing discrepancies that contradicted the
>
> findings of the FPP's regarding the entrance being closer to the Cowlick
>
> vs. the EOP as per the original autopsist's report.
>
>
>
> 4) Strangely, you need to add some pro-CT persons like Cyril Wecht to the
>
> list of incompetents or evil persons you don't trust either. He has
>
> examined the original photos several times and---to my knowledge---has
>
> never claimed to see fakery or any *clear* evidence to support shots
>
> coming anywhere, but from behind. (He does think that the missing brain
>
> is an issue and examination of it could have very well been the "smoking
>
> gun" that proves forensically that there was a shot from elsewhere.)
>
>

Don't know about incompetents or evil people. They were given the set
up evidence and mostly believed what they saw. The ONLY people were the 3
prosectors that saw ONLY a small hole where everyone else saw a 'large
hole'. See the other thread entitled 'List of Over 40 people that saw the
Large Hole'.

>
> Again your rejection of these as "small hole BOH witnesses" is based
>
> solely on your conclusion that it is easier to believe a government
>
> coordinated plot involving MANY persons being either evil, corrupt, and/or
>
> grossly incompetent, than it is to doubt the word of a large number of
>
> witnesses who either only saw the President's head when it was in truly
>
> horrible condition (and under conditions of immense personal shock) or who
>
> only began telling about seeing a "large hole in BOH" many years later.
>
>

Don't be silly. The plot was much less people than that old LN factoid.
Andas to 'small hole' people, there were only 3 of them, the
prosectors...who were under orders and nearing retirement.

My rejection of the 'small hole' theory is from evidence, mostly in
testimony. And as to "immense personal shock", most of the witnesses were
medically trained people that worked with emergencies and life threatening
situations every day, and didn't fly into a panic at the sight of blood or
other unpleasant sight.

Make a note...the 'large hole' is from many people's sworn testimony
and statements. Attempts to discredit all those people that corroborate
each other won't work.

>
> It's an unsatifying choice either way, but I believe that a combo of
>
> honest witness errors + a few who's memories could well have become
>
> distorted over the decades or who may have merely decided it was time for
>
> their 15 minutes of fame, is more likely than a wide-ranging plot against
>
> the POTUS succeeding in corrupting so many persons (and for numerous
>
> decades) into going along with it.
>
>
>
> BT George

A shame you see the approx. 59 witnesses to the 'large hole' as witness
errors and distorted memories...:) Easier for me to say that you've
displayed faulty logic, than to discredit so many people as too dumb to
know their own mind and what they saw.

BTW, the 59 comes from the 33 listed in the other thread by name and
link, plus the 26 people that the HSCA lied about saying that they agreed
with the autopsy photos.

Chris

[BT George]

On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:19:41 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:16:19 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:34:57 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, October 14, 2013 9:19:50 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On 10/14/2013 8:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

SIPPAGE OF EARLIER THREAD STUFF

Rather glib comeback. You are positing that numerous professionals
(anthropologists, photographic experts, forensic pathologists, and medical
experts + others) were unable to spot fakery in the photos and X-rays.
Could happen, but require significant---take your pick---incompetence,
lack of integrity in going along with it, or outright participation in the
cover up.

Hard to see why I am supposed to sanctify the word of all the large hole
witnesses as beyond question, but can just trash anyone who was actually
ENTRUSTED to review the evidence in a scientific manner. But that's is, I
guess, what makes me an LN and you a CT. (Or "CE" if you prefer.)

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > 3) You have to conclude that people like Chad Zimmerman and Larry
>
> >
>
> > Sturdivan who have seen the photos and the NA were so biased or evil that
>
> >
>
> > they couldn't see any evidence of fakery, even though they DID report
>
> >
>
> > (quite unpopularly I might add) seeing discrepancies that contradicted the
>
> >
>
> > findings of the FPP's regarding the entrance being closer to the Cowlick
>
> >
>
> > vs. the EOP as per the original autopsist's report.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 4) Strangely, you need to add some pro-CT persons like Cyril Wecht to the
>
> >
>
> > list of incompetents or evil persons you don't trust either. He has
>
> >
>
> > examined the original photos several times and---to my knowledge---has
>
> >
>
> > never claimed to see fakery or any *clear* evidence to support shots
>
> >
>
> > coming anywhere, but from behind. (He does think that the missing brain
>
> >
>
> > is an issue and examination of it could have very well been the "smoking
>
> >
>
> > gun" that proves forensically that there was a shot from elsewhere.)
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Don't know about incompetents or evil people. They were given the set
>
> up evidence and mostly believed what they saw. The ONLY people were the 3
>
> prosectors that saw ONLY a small hole where everyone else saw a 'large
>
> hole'. See the other thread entitled 'List of Over 40 people that saw the
>
> Large Hole'.
>
>
>

See comments above.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Again your rejection of these as "small hole BOH witnesses" is based
>
> >
>
> > solely on your conclusion that it is easier to believe a government
>
> >
>
> > coordinated plot involving MANY persons being either evil, corrupt, and/or
>
> >
>
> > grossly incompetent, than it is to doubt the word of a large number of
>
> >
>
> > witnesses who either only saw the President's head when it was in truly
>
> >
>
> > horrible condition (and under conditions of immense personal shock) or who
>
> >
>
> > only began telling about seeing a "large hole in BOH" many years later.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Don't be silly. The plot was much less people than that old LN factoid.
>
> Andas to 'small hole' people, there were only 3 of them, the
>
> prosectors...who were under orders and nearing retirement.
>
>

You and Bob and a few others who see the problem of a wide conspiracy keep
trying to claim it was not really too wide. But to explain away as faked,
or otherwise illegitmate, all the main evidence agains LHO as sole
assassin in this case you have to enlist a lot more than a handful of
people. It seems to me you need several actual plotters, shamelessly meek
order-takers, or otherwise corrupted by Federal Grants or some other
inducements at some level in most or all the following:

-The DPD.

-The FBI.

-The military. (Bethesda and various firearms testing personnel.)

-The Secret Service (Didn't someone have to let the plotters in on the
"late breaking news" as to the motorcade route so they could set up the
murder and frame Oswald with more than a 2 or 3 days notice?)

-The CIA. (Either as involved or helping fake the Zapruder film as I
believe you have suggested.)

-The private/non-Federal Gov.t sector. (Seems a lot of those guys from
the latter FPP's and HSCA did not work for the Uncle Sam.)

-The main-stream press. (That dirty Kronkite et. al. who were all too
eager to believe the WC.)

- A few of your large hole BOH witnesses. (Four Parkland doctors saw the
autopsy photos in the 1988 Nova Special and came out declaring that "These
were consistent with what we said." ...Though for what strange reason
they claimed a marriage between their back-of-the-head oriented gestures
and the autopsy photos is anybody' guess.)

-The Mob. (Per many persons theories.)

-The Warren Commission. (Dirty Earl, McCloy, Dulles, Specter et. al.)

-The HSCA. (Beyond the GK stuff, based on the faulty dicatabelt evidence.)

-Many others ever since.


You can quibble with my list or proposals, but clearly this was a plot
involving a lot more than single digits.

>
> My rejection of the 'small hole' theory is from evidence, mostly in
>
> testimony. And as to "immense personal shock", most of the witnesses were
>
> medically trained people that worked with emergencies and life threatening
>
> situations every day, and didn't fly into a panic at the sight of blood or
>
> other unpleasant sight.
>
>

Yes. And I am quite sure these "medically trained people" (most of whom
were very young back then and early in their careers) were very much
expecting the young, seemingly vigorous 35th President of the United
States to be wheeled into their trauma room with his head blown half off,
a hole in his neck, and a blank death stare looking up at them.

Yepper. Just another run-of-the mill day for the hospital. Nothing
personally shocking or unexepected about encountering that. No way that
could have caught them in anything, but a professional and dispassionate
mood.

>
> Make a note...the 'large hole' is from many people's sworn testimony
>
> and statements. Attempts to discredit all those people that corroborate
>
> each other won't work.
>
>
>

Nor to call into question so many, accross so many agencies and
disciplines, and accross many years. Again. It's just a matter of WHO
you don't trust and WHY you believe that lack of trust is or is not
reasonable.

BT George

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 9:04:35 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> This much is clear: There is a discrepancy between the descriptions
>
> initially given by the Parkland doctors of JFK's large head wound, and
>
> that given by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda.
>
>
>

> The question is, What does this mean? What can we reasonably infer from
>
> this discrepancy? I see three possibilities:
>
>
>
> 1) Someone surgically altered JFK's body between the time it left Parkland
>
> and the time it arrived at Bethesda.
>
>
>

> 2) The autopsy doctors at Bethesda altered the body before they took the
>
> photos and x-rays that support their conclusions.
>
>
>

> 3) The Parkland doctors were mistaken. Although they saw a large wound on
>
> JFK'S head, it was not precisely where they originally described it to be.
>
>
>
>
>

> I think that applying Occam's razor, which states that among competing
>
> hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected,
>
> provides the most reasonable answer to this question.
>
>
>

> The first answer requires there to have been a conspiracy involving
>
> members of the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, and most likely members
>
> of JFK's inner circle, including his personal physician. The body would
>
> have to have been removed from the coffin and surgically altered at some
>
> time during the flight from Dallas to D.C., without Jackie knowing about
>
> it -- unless she were involved in the conspiracy.
>
>
>
> The second possibility involves high ranking officers of the U.S. Navy
>
> deliberately falsifying evidence in a major crime, AND knowing exactly how
>
> to alter that evidence, within hours of the crime, in a way that would
>
> prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
>
>
>
> The third possibility requires us to assume that the Parkland doctors were
>
> trying to save the president's life. They saw him lying on his back with
>
> brain matter in his hair. They did not lift the hair and scalp to look at
>
> the skull. They inferred from what they saw that there was a large wound
>
> in the back of his head. In the 1980s, while filming a PBS documentary,
>
> the Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they
>
> said that they were consistent with what they saw in the emergency room.
>
>
>
> Which answer requires us to make the most simple, common sense
>
> assumptions?
>
>
>
> I would say that number three wins by a mile.

Not a chance. Number 2 is the closest to what actually happened based
on sworn testimony. Tom Robinson watched as Humes and Boswell modified
the body under the guise of removing the brain, which was never their
responsibility in other autopsies. But they had dismissed ALL assistants
so that they would have no one watching what they did. Robinson got there
early and saw them.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:01:57 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
> With regard to scenarios #1 and #2, nothing is so abjectly irrational as
>
> advanced by almost every conspiracy theorist than that the conspirators
>
> would willfully conspire BEFORE the fact to create the very incriminating
>
> forensic evidence that they would then work so diligently to obliterate or
>
> conceal AFTER the fact.
>
>
>
> This insanely counter-intuitive criminal “strategy” is even more
>
> self-condemning when it is realized that the conspirators could not have
>
> possibly predicted the degree and duration of unfettered access they would
>
> have to the body in the hours immediately following the assassination.
>
> Nor, as you noted, could they be certain of having all the medical and
>
> forensically relevant details of the attack necessary to construct a hasty
>
> alteration of the wounds that would nonetheless be faithful to the ongoing
>
> discovery of evidence that was certain to be forthcoming as the
>
> investigation proceeded over the ensuing weeks and months.
>
>
>
> Everything about such an illusion defies all “reason” for its
>
> creation.



What defies reason is the assumptions made above. It is NOT a
conspiracy 'theory' that the conspirators knew that they had to gain
control of the body after the murder, so that they could also control the
resulting autopsy by military prosectors who could be put under orders and
threatened with prison. It is a matter of facts and sworn testimony.

The first step was to kill the POTUS, next was to gain control of the
body, third to gain control of ALL evidence and alter any and all evidence
as needed with confederates in certain positions, such as the evidence
collector for the FBI. When you have the resources of the USA, things get
easier to accomplish. The proof of that is that it was done.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:02:53 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> "Not really"? Does that mean they did or they didn't? In fact, the
>
> Parkland doctors said the autopsy evidence was consistent with what they
>
> saw. Watch the documentary.
>
>
>
> Your "straw man" excuse for not being able to answer an argument is
>
> getting old.
>
>
>
> If you have another scenario explaining why initial observations of JFK's
>
> head wound differed, I'd be glad to hear it.


False. The autopsy evidence from the prosectors varied from what the
Parkland doctors and nurses saw. However, all other witnesses besides the
prosectors, including the mortician agreed with the Parkland staff.

One of the major differences was the damage to the top and side of the
head, done ostensibly to remove the brain, but really to cause damage more
consistent with a shot from above and behind.

All the statements above are from sworn testimony.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <7e865cc6-4bc5-4e73...@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...

Amusingly, I *STILL* don't have a cite where this was discussed in this
forum. Tony asserted that it had... yet I'm still waiting for a cite.

Now, the question that arises, once someone admits that the HSCA stated
something contradicted by their evidence... is *WHY* did they lie.

What purpose was being served?

And why do the supposed authors of those paragraphs deny having written
them?

Tony Marsh - would you like to answer?

Anyone?

[Anthony Marsh]

Reductio ad absurdum. You've already lost the argument.

> -The DPD.
>
> -The FBI.
>
> -The military. (Bethesda and various firearms testing personnel.)
>
> -The Secret Service (Didn't someone have to let the plotters in on the
> "late breaking news" as to the motorcade route so they could set up the
> murder and frame Oswald with more than a 2 or 3 days notice?)
>
> -The CIA. (Either as involved or helping fake the Zapruder film as I
> believe you have suggested.)
>
> -The private/non-Federal Gov.t sector. (Seems a lot of those guys from
> the latter FPP's and HSCA did not work for the Uncle Sam.)
>
> -The main-stream press. (That dirty Kronkite et. al. who were all too
> eager to believe the WC.)
>
> - A few of your large hole BOH witnesses. (Four Parkland doctors saw the
> autopsy photos in the 1988 Nova Special and came out declaring that "These
> were consistent with what we said." ...Though for what strange reason
> they claimed a marriage between their back-of-the-head oriented gestures
> and the autopsy photos is anybody' guess.)
>
> -The Mob. (Per many persons theories.)
>
> -The Warren Commission. (Dirty Earl, McCloy, Dulles, Specter et. al.)
>
> -The HSCA. (Beyond the GK stuff, based on the faulty dicatabelt evidence.)
>
> -Many others ever since.
>
>
> You can quibble with my list or proposals, but clearly this was a plot
> involving a lot more than single digits.
>

So were the Castro plots. But they didn't need a cast of thousands.

[cmikes]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 10:08:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/6/2013 7:00 PM, cmikes wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 4, 2013 8:49:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, October 4, 2013 5:08:49 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Thank you, Anthony, for pointing out my grievous omission.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I should of course have mentioned the Straw Man Aliens, hailing from the
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> same planet that gave us Christian BALE and Ray Bolger.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> All very humorous, but still with absolutely NO facts or evidence to
>
> >>
>
> >> counter my scenario described above and in many places and threads. Can I
>
> >>
>
> >> then assume no one has found any thing to counter my scenario?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Chris
>
> >
>
> > You seem to be under the mistaken impression, like many conspiracy
>
> > theorists, that people have to prove your theories wrong. That's not how
>
> > debate and reason work. The onus is on you to prove your imaginings.
>
> > For instance, if I posited that Martians killed JFK with Death Rays from
>
> > space and faked all the evidence, it would be my responsibility to provide
>
> > some proof for that theory. If you could provide some evidence for your
>
> > imaginings, that would be wonderful. If thousands of people got together
>
> > to kill JFK and fake all the evidence that proves that Oswald was guilty,
>
> > surely there must be tons of proof.
>
> >
>
>
>
> But we've already been through your childish scenario before and you
>
> lost the argument. There were no Martians around in 1963. And death rays
>
> from Mars could not be focused finely enough in 1963 to kill only Kennedy.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ever hear of Watergate? Probably not. By your definitions if it was a
>
> conspiracy there would have been tons of evidence and everyone would
>
> know instantly that it was a conspiracy.
>
>

Ok, let's talk about your standard dodge of Watergate. Let's see, in the
Watergate case we have multiple convictions in a court of law, multiple
confessions in open court, John Dean's, among others, testimony before
Congress, and even physical evidence like the Nixon tapes among other
things.

No, I guess Watergate never happened. (That's sarcasm, in case you
couldn't tell.) If you had one tenth of the evidence in a supposed JFK
conspiracy as there was in the Watergate case, you might be able to find
someone to take you seriously. You have a ton of proof of Watergate. In
the JFK case, your only "proof" is an audio recording that even the
majority of buffs admit has been debunked, and the fervent belief that an
untrained layman can interpret autopsy photographs and X-Rays better than
dozens of forensic pathologists than have collectively done thousands of
autopsies.


> > My own standard of proof, and I don't believe that this is unreasonable,
>
> > would be stuff like a conviction in a court of law, or a confession in
>
> > open court, or even the tiniest hint of physical evidence.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You ARE unreasonable. That's why you're here.
>

If you're so intent on making comparisons between JFK and Watergate, why
is it unreasonable to ask for the same standard of proof in both cases?

[Anthony Marsh]

Phony story.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/22/13 7:36 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:01:57 PM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
>> With regard to scenarios #1 and #2, nothing is so abjectly irrational as
>>
>> advanced by almost every conspiracy theorist than that the conspirators
>>
>> would willfully conspire BEFORE the fact to create the very incriminating
>>
>> forensic evidence that they would then work so diligently to obliterate or
>>
>> conceal AFTER the fact.
>>
>>
>>

>> This insanely counter-intuitive criminal �strategy� is even more

>>
>> self-condemning when it is realized that the conspirators could not have
>>
>> possibly predicted the degree and duration of unfettered access they would
>>
>> have to the body in the hours immediately following the assassination.
>>
>> Nor, as you noted, could they be certain of having all the medical and
>>
>> forensically relevant details of the attack necessary to construct a hasty
>>
>> alteration of the wounds that would nonetheless be faithful to the ongoing
>>
>> discovery of evidence that was certain to be forthcoming as the
>>
>> investigation proceeded over the ensuing weeks and months.
>>
>>
>>

>> Everything about such an illusion defies all �reason� for its

>>
>> creation.
>
>
>
> What defies reason is the assumptions made above. It is NOT a
> conspiracy 'theory' that the conspirators knew that they had to gain
> control of the body after the murder, so that they could also control the
> resulting autopsy by military prosectors who could be put under orders and
> threatened with prison. It is a matter of facts and sworn testimony.
>

No, it's a fairy tale.
An utterly illogical plot with a factually impossible execution.
The remarkable, even fascinating, aspect is that people such as you
persist in believing such things.

> The first step was to kill the POTUS, next was to gain control of the
> body, third to gain control of ALL evidence and alter any and all evidence
> as needed with confederates in certain positions, such as the evidence
> collector for the FBI. When you have the resources of the USA, things get
> easier to accomplish. The proof of that is that it was done.
>
> Chris
>

Soon to be a major motion picture!

[Anthony Marsh]

You can wait until Hell freezes over. I am not here to babysit you and
teech you how to Google.

> Now, the question that arises, once someone admits that the HSCA stated
> something contradicted by their evidence... is *WHY* did they lie.
>

Why did they lie about what? You don't even realize that there were two
committees. The first was looking for conspiracy. They got too close and
were shut down. The second committee was tasked with rubber stamping the
WC and not find any conspiracy. Shoot down any conspiracy notions. Prove
that all conspiracy authors are kooks.

> What purpose was being served?
>
> And why do the supposed authors of those paragraphs deny having written
> them?
>
> Tony Marsh - would you like to answer?
>

No. Why is there air?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why alter anything if they are in full charge? Just lock it up and don't
let anyone see it. There wasn't going to be a trial. No pesky defense
attorneys asking to examine the evidence.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

I've discussed it here, and I'm not going to bother to dig it up for
you. You can use Google as much as anyone, go look, now that you know
it's there.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <526756c3$2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

One of the defining characteristics of an honest man is the ability to
cite for anything that they claim is fact.

>> Now, the question that arises, once someone admits that the HSCA stated
>> something contradicted by their evidence... is *WHY* did they lie.
>>
>
>Why did they lie about what?

This isn't a debate.

>You don't even realize that there were two
>committees.

You have *NO* evidence on which to base such an assertion.

>The first was looking for conspiracy. They got too close and
>were shut down. The second committee was tasked with rubber stamping the
>WC and not find any conspiracy. Shoot down any conspiracy notions. Prove
>that all conspiracy authors are kooks.
>
>> What purpose was being served?
>>
>> And why do the supposed authors of those paragraphs deny having written
>> them?
>>
>> Tony Marsh - would you like to answer?
>>
>
>No. Why is there air?

Of course not. There isn't a credible non-conspiratorial explanation...