"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

[David Von Pein]

It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
finding a "track" (their word) between JFK's back and throat wounds. Let's
see what they said....

[Quote On:]

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base
of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of
his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have
followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the
tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found.

There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by
subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the
contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea
described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one
between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted
by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck.

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have
been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe
was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to
permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would
have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the
changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because
of the existence of postmortem rigidity.

Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been
demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two
cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information
disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in
this report."

[End Quote.]

Complete Clark Panel report....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

[Herbert Blenner]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 11:44:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
> JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
> muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
> essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
> testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
> finding a "track" (their word) between JFK's back and throat wounds. Let's
> see what they said....
>
> [Quote On:]
>
> "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base
> of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of
> his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have
> followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the
> tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found.

Nonsense. The Clark Panel described the back wound as a 7 mm by 10 mm
ellipse. This means that the direction of the entering bullet made a
45-degree incidence angle with a perpendicular directly into the back. So
the reported characteristics of the back wound place the entering bullet
on a course of away from presumed exit from the throat.

[bigdog]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 11:44:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Can't wait to see what cockamamie excuse Chris dreams up to dismiss this
report.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 11:44:44 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Total Bullshit! The panel was kept in the dark as to the real findings
of the prosectors, and they had no knowledge that the prosectors actually
tried probing the wound, both with fingers and with a chrome probe. As
they probed from the back side, James Jenkins was able to see the probe
hitting the pleura as he looked into the body cavity. Fingers went in as
far as to the pleura, where nothing could pass, including any bullet that
went into that wound.

Here is the recollections of James Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist,
from an interview. He assisted at the autopsy:

"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper
posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes
sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an
indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the
other side, where the right lung would have been before its removal. The
pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of
the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the
right lung).

From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

Another foolish comment was "..right side of the base of the neck..."
denoting the point at which the bullet struck JFK. The bullet was in the
"upper right posterior thorax" as per the Autopsy Report, NOT the base of
the neck.

Chris

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
> JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
> muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
> essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
> testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
> finding a "track" (their word)

Well, hold it right there. They didn't say they "found" a track. They
concluded there had been a track. That's entirely different. The fact is,
David, that everyone to study the back wound initially concluded it was
not an entrance into the thorax, but a mere flesh wound barely penetrating
the outer layer of skin. When you read source materials--forensics
journals, anatomy textbooks, etc--moreover, it becomes readily apparent
that both Specter's lie holding that the bullet slipped between two
muscles and the doctors' own confabulation that the muscle tightened up
and concealed the track, are total HOOHA, and 100% at odds with this
bullet's having been fired at 2,000 fps.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

Upon re-reading the passage, I realized that they were talking about the
x-rays and that you were right, David. As discussed on my website, the
Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan, ALL claimed the x-rays show a bullet
path heading downward in the body and exiting on the throat. This bullet
path/emphyseme is even apparent in the x-rays published by the HSCA. The
problem is that this bullet track leads back not to the back, but well up
the neck, and suggests the bullet exiting the throat descended within the
neck--most probably from the entrance by the EOP--which did not connect
with the exit on top of the skull. The HSCA FPP tried to get around this,
moreover, by pretending that they thought the emphysema on the x-rays came
as a result of the tracheal wound, and that the hole on the neck was
blocked off by Kennedy's tie, leading air to back up within the right side
of Kennedy's neck.

Holy moly, what hooha!

[David Von Pein]

There's your answer, bigdog.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 7:04:19 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

I knew it would be amusing.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:33:42 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
> > JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
> > muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
> > essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
> > testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
> > finding a "track" (their word)
>
>
> Well, hold it right there. They didn't say they "found" a track. They
> concluded there had been a track. That's entirely different. The fact is,
> David, that everyone to study the back wound initially concluded it was
> not an entrance into the thorax, but a mere flesh wound barely penetrating
> the outer layer of skin. When you read source materials--forensics
> journals, anatomy textbooks, etc--moreover, it becomes readily apparent
> that both Specter's lie holding that the bullet slipped between two
> muscles and the doctors' own confabulation that the muscle tightened up
> and concealed the track, are total HOOHA, and 100% at odds with this
> bullet's having been fired at 2,000 fps.
>

Let's take it further. In the Autopsy Report (AR) under 'Missile Wounds' #2 which describes the back wound it says: "The missile path through
the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved." In reality, since they DIDN'T prove it, it wasn't there. Also, DURING the autopsy, the prosectors ALL agreed that after failing in their search for a bullet and a path for it, that "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body of JFK!

And while some folks don't want to believe it, the X-ray Technician, Jerrol Custer said under oath that when he raised the body for a better shot, he saw a bullet fall out of the back which was immediately grabbed by Finck and was never seen again.

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

>
> >between JFK's back and throat wounds. Let's
> > see what they said....
> >
> > [Quote On:]
> >
> > "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base
> > of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of
> > his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have
> > followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the
> > tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found.
> >
> > There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by
> > subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the
> > contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea
> > described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one
> > between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted
> > by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck.
> >

The bruise on the lung was said to be on the middle lobe by one of the assistants to the autopsy, not the apex, making it impossible for any bullet to pass through. But the AR said "the pleura was INTACT", meaning that no bullet could get through it or the right lung without tearing or punching a hole through them. No bullet passed that way.

> > The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have
> > been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe
> > was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to
> > permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would
> > have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the
> > changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because
> > of the existence of postmortem rigidity.
> >

The wound in the back was probed by both the fingers and by the chrome probe by the prosectors. In doing so, the assistant James Jenkins said that he looked into the body cavity from the inside and saw the probe rubbing against the pleura after the lungs had been taken out.

> > Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been
> > demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two
> > cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information
> > disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in
> > this report."
> >
> > [End Quote.]
> >
> > Complete Clark Panel report....
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

My insertions above are backed up by sworn testimony that can be supplied any time someone had the courage to look at them. Let me know.

Chris

[mainframetech]

That's easy. It's all been discussed before. And You've been part of those discussions so you would know my answer. So you're doing more of your bull throwing. All the panels were working from limited data. The all were kept from any detailed conversations during the autopsy, and they were kept from many of the honest photos, they had no body to look at, and they were lied to in the Autopsy Report (AR) which they no doubt gave a lot of weight to. They could only come to the decisions they came to, as proof of the excellent planning of the conspirators. and by the time that the truth was available to the public, the interest had passed enough not to form any further panels.

Simple.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Is this a Scifi movie?
Back in 1963 at Bethedsa, those X-rays could not possibly SHOW the path
of the bullet. You are deducing it.

> path/emphyseme is even apparent in the x-rays published by the HSCA. The
> problem is that this bullet track leads back not to the back, but well up
> the neck, and suggests the bullet exiting the throat descended within the

Silly. You look at the autopsy photos and you can't even tell the
difference between the back and the neck?
Are you .John?
Look at the jacket and shirt. Any jacket and any shirt. Tell us you
can't see where the back is and where the neck is. When someone tells
you to point to your neck do you point to your toes?
Anatomy 101.

> neck--most probably from the entrance by the EOP--which did not connect
> with the exit on top of the skull. The HSCA FPP tried to get around this,

Is this a new theory? You have an entrance near the EOP which exits the
throat?
You mean like this?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

This is exactly why autopsies are required in the case of murder.
You do agree that is was murder, don't you? Do you think Earl Rose
would make a mistake like this? Or Dr. Henry Lee? Or Cyril Wecht?
Was it YOU who gave this story to the Boston Globe?

> moreover, by pretending that they thought the emphysema on the x-rays came
> as a result of the tracheal wound, and that the hole on the neck was
> blocked off by Kennedy's tie, leading air to back up within the right side
> of Kennedy's neck.
>

You are overlooking the fracture of T-1. Was that an old war wound? How
come it doesn't show up in his pre-mortem X-rays?

> Holy moly, what hooha!
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2015 8:33 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>> It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
>> JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
>> muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
>> essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
>> testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
>> finding a "track" (their word)
>
>
> Well, hold it right there. They didn't say they "found" a track. They
> concluded there had been a track. That's entirely different. The fact is,
> David, that everyone to study the back wound initially concluded it was
> not an entrance into the thorax, but a mere flesh wound barely penetrating

No. No one ever said.

> the outer layer of skin. When you read source materials--forensics
> journals, anatomy textbooks, etc--moreover, it becomes readily apparent
> that both Specter's lie holding that the bullet slipped between two
> muscles and the doctors' own confabulation that the muscle tightened up
> and concealed the track, are total HOOHA, and 100% at odds with this
> bullet's having been fired at 2,000 fps.
>

What bullet was fired at exactly 2,000 fps? Obviously not Oswald's. Was
the second rifle also a Carcano? What brand of ammo did it use? You really
think a 2,000 fps bullet is just going to penetrate an inch in the back
and stop?

[Ralph Cinque]

I must say, this is one of the most desperate and far-fetched ploys that
DVP has resorted to. Sounds like he's slipping.

It's over, David. It's a hopeless cause for you. Oswald was innocent.

[Anthony Marsh]

The autopsy doctors were working with limited experience, training and
minds. And they were controlled by the military.

You don't PROBE a wound. You dissect it. That's what they started to do
and were stopped by the military.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/17/2015 10:20 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:33:42 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
>>> JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
>>> muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
>>> essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
>>> testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
>>> finding a "track" (their word)
>>
>>
>> Well, hold it right there. They didn't say they "found" a track. They
>> concluded there had been a track. That's entirely different. The fact is,
>> David, that everyone to study the back wound initially concluded it was
>> not an entrance into the thorax, but a mere flesh wound barely penetrating
>> the outer layer of skin. When you read source materials--forensics
>> journals, anatomy textbooks, etc--moreover, it becomes readily apparent
>> that both Specter's lie holding that the bullet slipped between two
>> muscles and the doctors' own confabulation that the muscle tightened up
>> and concealed the track, are total HOOHA, and 100% at odds with this
>> bullet's having been fired at 2,000 fps.
>>
>
>
> Let's take it further. In the Autopsy Report (AR) under 'Missile Wounds' #2 which describes the back wound it says: "The missile path through
> the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved." In reality, since they DIDN'T prove it, it wasn't there. Also, DURING the autopsy, the prosectors ALL agreed that after failing in their search for a bullet and a path for it, that "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body of JFK!
>

Because they weren't allowed to dissect it, which is the only correct
way to document a wound.

Incompetent.

[mainframetech]

Odd that real testimony would be amusing to you, but then you are a firm
believer in fairy tales of the WC lawyers, aren't you?

Chrias

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/16/2015 8:33 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:44:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> It's true that JFK's autopsy doctors were not able to successfully "probe"
> >> JFK's upper-back wound (most likely due to the fact that Kennedy's large
> >> muscles in the area of the wound had stiffened up after death and
> >> essentially "closed" the wound path, according to Dr. Boswell's ARRB
> >> testimony), but it's interesting to note what the Clark Panel said about
> >> finding a "track" (their word)
> >
> >
> > Well, hold it right there. They didn't say they "found" a track. They
> > concluded there had been a track. That's entirely different. The fact is,
> > David, that everyone to study the back wound initially concluded it was
> > not an entrance into the thorax, but a mere flesh wound barely penetrating
>
> No. No one ever said.
>
> > the outer layer of skin. When you read source materials--forensics
> > journals, anatomy textbooks, etc--moreover, it becomes readily apparent
> > that both Specter's lie holding that the bullet slipped between two
> > muscles and the doctors' own confabulation that the muscle tightened up
> > and concealed the track, are total HOOHA, and 100% at odds with this
> > bullet's having been fired at 2,000 fps.
> >
>
> What bullet was fired at exactly 2,000 fps? Obviously not Oswald's. Was
> the second rifle also a Carcano? What brand of ammo did it use? You really
> think a 2,000 fps bullet is just going to penetrate an inch in the back
> and stop?

No, of course not, Tony. That was the point. The autopsists, the WC, and
most if not all single-assassin theorists propose that a high-velocity
bullet entered Kennedy's neck/back and left no probe-able pathway through
the outer muscle. That's ridiculous. I've read hundreds of autopsy
protocols and summaries over the years and have never come across another
in which A bullet traveling at any velocity was purported to have entered
the body without leaving a probe-able entrance. Bullets don't bounce off
skin while traveling at a high velocity, and the wound tracks of these
bullets within the body don't just disappear. It follows then that the
bullet creating this wound was not traveling at a high velocity. It's the
only reasonable conclusion one can come to based upon the evidence. And
yet that was unacceptable.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

No. Not at all. The X-rays show a black line of interstitial emphysema
ending at the purported exit location on the throat. The Clark Panel,
Lattimer, and Sturdivan all claimed that this led back to the bullet's
entrance on the back.

> > path/emphyseme is even apparent in the x-rays published by the HSCA. The
> > problem is that this bullet track leads back not to the back, but well up
> > the neck, and suggests the bullet exiting the throat descended within the
>
> Silly. You look at the autopsy photos and you can't even tell the
> difference between the back and the neck?
> Are you .John?
> Look at the jacket and shirt. Any jacket and any shirt. Tell us you
> can't see where the back is and where the neck is. When someone tells
> you to point to your neck do you point to your toes?
> Anatomy 101.
>

You should start re-reading things before you respond to them. Here,
again, you act like you are arguing with me when you are actually making
my point. The line of interstitial air on the x-rays leads up the neck,
far past the bullet entrance shown on the autopsy photos. If you read
Lattimer's hunchback drawing you'll see that it's based upon the x-rays.
The x-rays told him the bullet came down the neck, so he convinced himself
Kennedy's back was hunched up above the level of his chin.

>
> > neck--most probably from the entrance by the EOP--which did not connect
> > with the exit on top of the skull. The HSCA FPP tried to get around this,
>
> Is this a new theory? You have an entrance near the EOP which exits the
> throat?
> You mean like this?
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
>
> This is exactly why autopsies are required in the case of murder.
> You do agree that is was murder, don't you? Do you think Earl Rose
> would make a mistake like this? Or Dr. Henry Lee? Or Cyril Wecht?
> Was it YOU who gave this story to the Boston Globe?
>

No, Tony, this is not a new theory. I have discussed this hundreds of
times online, and at conferences, etc, going back about ten years. There
are, furthermore, two witnesses to the autopsy who said the EOP entrance
led to the throat exit. They said this long before the thought even
crossed my mind.

Nice dodge, btw. Do you believe the HSCA FPP's offering that the air
backed-up in the neck got there as a result of the tracheal wound, and
that it couldn't escape through the hole in the throat because it was
blocked off by Kennedy's tie?

>
> > moreover, by pretending that they thought the emphysema on the x-rays came
> > as a result of the tracheal wound, and that the hole on the neck was
> > blocked off by Kennedy's tie, leading air to back up within the right side
> > of Kennedy's neck.
> >
>
> You are overlooking the fracture of T-1. Was that an old war wound? How
> come it doesn't show up in his pre-mortem X-rays?
>

Not at all. I am probably the only JFK researcher to study lung bruises.
The bruise on Kennedy's lung could not have been created by the passage of
a nearby bullet, and could only have been created by the impact of a
bullet on bone overlying the lung. T-1 lays across the top of the lung
where the bruise was discovered. It follows then that a projectile hit T-1
and caused the bruise.

> > Holy moly, what hooha!
> >

[bigdog]

Find a history book that agrees with you.

[bigdog]

The amusement comes not from the testimony but from your FUBAR
interpretation of it.

[bigdog]

Did you ever stop to ask yourself why your conclusion is the polar
opposite of those of every qualified medical examiner who has looked at
the evidence and concluded a missile did transit JFK's torso, entering the
upper back just to the right of the spine and exiting from the middle of
his throat? Did you ever stop to consider maybe those people might know
something that you don't know about wound ballistics.

But given your theory of a low velocity bullet making just a shallow entry
into JFK's back, you have the same dilemma I have been presenting Chris
with the past few weeks. Do you know how slowly a bullet would have to be
traveling to make such a shallow penetration into soft tissue. By
comparison, the bullet Ruby shot Oswald with was a .38 Special which
entered the left side of Oswald's abdomen and went completely through to
his right side, creating a bulge without breaking the skin. The .38
Special typical has a muzzle velocity in the 800-900 fps range. You are
proposing a bullet with a velocity just a fraction of the Ruby bullet.
What the hell kind of bullet do you think that would be and why would
someone who was trying to kill a POTUS use such a pipsqueak of a round.
And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
proposing.

The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
probled.

[mainframetech]

Nope. There's no way that any path led back to the back wound bullet's
entrance. One of the reasons is that the prosectors DURING the autopsy
investigated the back wound and looked for both the bullet and a path for
it. They used fingers and the chrome probe, and were able to get into the
wound only about an inch or so. James Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist,
from inside the body cavity could see the probe rubbing against the pleura
(tissue surrounding the lungs), and there was NO path. That was the end
of the track, and the pleura was intact and not torn or punctured. After
they were done searching, they all came to the conclusion "There's NO
EXIT" from the body for the back wound bullet! Here's the sworn testimony
of James Sibert, FBI agent, who was observing the autopsy:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that's when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that's just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn't
find any bullet.
And they said, 'There's no exit." Finck,
in particular, said, "There's no exit." And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

That's pretty clear that the bullet for some reason, was weak and didn't
go into the back more than an inch.

> > > path/emphyseme is even apparent in the x-rays published by the HSCA. The
> > > problem is that this bullet track leads back not to the back, but well up
> > > the neck, and suggests the bullet exiting the throat descended within the
> >
> > Silly. You look at the autopsy photos and you can't even tell the
> > difference between the back and the neck?
> > Are you .John?
> > Look at the jacket and shirt. Any jacket and any shirt. Tell us you
> > can't see where the back is and where the neck is. When someone tells
> > you to point to your neck do you point to your toes?
> > Anatomy 101.
> >
>
> You should start re-reading things before you respond to them. Here,
> again, you act like you are arguing with me when you are actually making
> my point. The line of interstitial air on the x-rays leads up the neck,
> far past the bullet entrance shown on the autopsy photos. If you read
> Lattimer's hunchback drawing you'll see that it's based upon the x-rays.
> The x-rays told him the bullet came down the neck, so he convinced himself
> Kennedy's back was hunched up above the level of his chin.
>

another view of the side X-ray was given by Jerrol Custer, Bethesda
X-ray Technician, who saw small metal fragments leading away from the
temple/forehead bullet wound backward in an expanding cone toward the
blow-out at the BOH of JFK. That forehead wound can be seen today by
enlarging the following photo:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

Once enlarged, look at the hair hanging down on the forehead and there
is a 'notch' in that hair, then look into that 'notch' and see the partial
view of the bullet hole with a slight rim around it. That's the wound
that matched the internal cone of metal fragments see by Custer in his
X-ray.

There's some controversy as to the placement of the bruise on the pleura
and the right lung. James Jenkins saw the bruise, but he says he saw it
on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung!! Either way, the Autopsy Report (AR) said
that "the pleura was INTACT", so that means that nothing was able to go
through at that point. If a bullet had gone through there, it would have
torn or punctured the pleura and lung and gone on.

Chris

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Not every "qualified" medical examiner, whatever that means. Do the reading. Study anatomy. A bullet entering at the location shown on the autopsy photos would not have passed to the right of the spine. I mean, really, do you think it's just a coincidence that the WC and HSCA both created drawings in which the bullet hole was further from the spine than shown in the photos?

> But given your theory of a low velocity bullet making just a shallow entry
> into JFK's back, you have the same dilemma I have been presenting Chris
> with the past few weeks. Do you know how slowly a bullet would have to be
> traveling to make such a shallow penetration into soft tissue. By
> comparison, the bullet Ruby shot Oswald with was a .38 Special which
> entered the left side of Oswald's abdomen and went completely through to
> his right side, creating a bulge without breaking the skin. The .38
> Special typical has a muzzle velocity in the 800-900 fps range. You are
> proposing a bullet with a velocity just a fraction of the Ruby bullet.
> What the hell kind of bullet do you think that would be and why would
> someone who was trying to kill a POTUS use such a pipsqueak of a round.

The CIA's manual on assassination recommended the use of .22 cal subsonic
rounds, and said they were effective up to a hundred yards. A trained
sniper using such a round would probably aim high. If firing from above,
moreover, he would have a tendency to aim high, as the bullet drop one
would normally expect would be greatly reduced. It follows, then, that if
a bullet aimed at the head was fired at 350 fps or so it would arrive a
bit late and land a bit low...on the back.

> And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
> have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
> gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
> from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
> range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
> just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
> proposing.
>
> The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
> reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
> The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
> rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> probled.

This viable answer is DOA. Feel free to read dozens of articles on wound
ballistics, and hundreds of autopsy protocols. You won't find any mention
of high-velocity wounds to the back that couldn't be probed. This is yet
another example of where the "experts" have blown smoke in our eyes to
hide that the "official" explanation for Kennedy's wounds makes no sense,
and is totally at odds with what one will find elsewhere.

[mainframetech]

You can't imagine how ridiculous you sound saying things like that!
The internal organs were taken out when they probed the back wound with
the chrome probe. Jenkins saw the probe from the inside body cavity with
nothing there except the pleura, and he SAW the probe rubbing against the
pleura. There was no possibility of a path that couldn't be seen. There
just plain wasn't a path. We're talking real events here, not your stupid
WC lawyers theories.

No panels of medical people could make any reasonable determinations
with the limited data they were allowed to see. They were kept in the
dark. An order of silence was in force at Bethesda. And even the HSCA
was busy lying to cover up testimony that was proving embarrassing. And
they got caught at that lying! The autopsy findings were what was said
DURING the autopsy, and not after when Humes faked up an Autopsy Report
(AR).

Ol' Humes even got nervous and bothered when the ARRB nailed him about
his burning of notes and things. They got him to admit that he burned a
complete version of his AR notes and a copy of the AR itself. His excuse
was that he didn't want anyone to use the bloody notes as souvenirs, but
they asked him if that was true, then why burn the AR, since it WASN'T
bloody.

He just stumbled and didn't have a decent answer. Humes was caught
lying a number of times throughout the whole event. He was caught by the
medical panel about the EOP and the supposed entry point of a bullet in
the rear of the head, and he was caught lying that he didn't do any
clandestine 'surgery' on the body, and others things. Some witness!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Since I don't re-interpret information that's plain as the nose on your
face, I guess the interpretation your laughing at is really yours. Think
it through.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure we do. There have been many cases of shallow wounds. But it depends
on which type of bullet you are imagining. Impossible for Oswald's ammo.
Possible for a .22 using a silencer.

> comparison, the bullet Ruby shot Oswald with was a .38 Special which
> entered the left side of Oswald's abdomen and went completely through to
> his right side, creating a bulge without breaking the skin. The .38
> Special typical has a muzzle velocity in the 800-900 fps range. You are
> proposing a bullet with a velocity just a fraction of the Ruby bullet.

Sure, so what? 317 fps. Now whatcha gonna do?

> What the hell kind of bullet do you think that would be and why would
> someone who was trying to kill a POTUS use such a pipsqueak of a round.

Not our problem.
It didn't happen. You can't say it could never happen. Learn the
difference and watch Mythbusters. Roosevelt had a shallow wound. Reagan
had a shallow wound. Are you saying they weren't trying to kill them?
Do you ever know what you are talking about?

> And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
> have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
> gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
> from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
> range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
> just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
> proposing.

So what? That's not our problem. That's your problem due to the false
assumptions you add to your straw man arguments.

>
> The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
> reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.

By guesswork.
Of course the bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
But you have no basis to claim that a shallow wound is physically
impossible.

> The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that

Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?

> rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> probled.
>

Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.

[Anthony Marsh]

Another fake Argument by Authority.

[Anthony Marsh]

WHo said that? Show me.

>>> path/emphyseme is even apparent in the x-rays published by the HSCA. The
>>> problem is that this bullet track leads back not to the back, but well up
>>> the neck, and suggests the bullet exiting the throat descended within the
>>
>> Silly. You look at the autopsy photos and you can't even tell the
>> difference between the back and the neck?
>> Are you .John?
>> Look at the jacket and shirt. Any jacket and any shirt. Tell us you
>> can't see where the back is and where the neck is. When someone tells
>> you to point to your neck do you point to your toes?
>> Anatomy 101.
>>
>
> You should start re-reading things before you respond to them. Here,
> again, you act like you are arguing with me when you are actually making
> my point. The line of interstitial air on the x-rays leads up the neck,
> far past the bullet entrance shown on the autopsy photos. If you read

According to whom? Show me.

> Lattimer's hunchback drawing you'll see that it's based upon the x-rays.

Not really. It's based on his imagination to make the SBT plausible.

> The x-rays told him the bullet came down the neck, so he convinced himself
> Kennedy's back was hunched up above the level of his chin.

No. He made it up out of whole cloth.

>
>>
>>> neck--most probably from the entrance by the EOP--which did not connect
>>> with the exit on top of the skull. The HSCA FPP tried to get around this,
>>
>> Is this a new theory? You have an entrance near the EOP which exits the
>> throat?
>> You mean like this?
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
>>
>> This is exactly why autopsies are required in the case of murder.
>> You do agree that is was murder, don't you? Do you think Earl Rose
>> would make a mistake like this? Or Dr. Henry Lee? Or Cyril Wecht?
>> Was it YOU who gave this story to the Boston Globe?
>>
>
> No, Tony, this is not a new theory. I have discussed this hundreds of
> times online, and at conferences, etc, going back about ten years. There
> are, furthermore, two witnesses to the autopsy who said the EOP entrance
> led to the throat exit. They said this long before the thought even
> crossed my mind.
>

No. And you weren't even aware of the Globe article. Does it agree with
your pet theory? Did you feed it to them?
Has any expert said this is what happened?

> Nice dodge, btw. Do you believe the HSCA FPP's offering that the air
> backed-up in the neck got there as a result of the tracheal wound, and
> that it couldn't escape through the hole in the throat because it was
> blocked off by Kennedy's tie?
>

No. Neither do I believe in the Easter Bunny. Why do you ask foolish
questions just to waste time. Because you are afraid to answer mine.

>>
>>> moreover, by pretending that they thought the emphysema on the x-rays came
>>> as a result of the tracheal wound, and that the hole on the neck was
>>> blocked off by Kennedy's tie, leading air to back up within the right side
>>> of Kennedy's neck.
>>>
>>
>> You are overlooking the fracture of T-1. Was that an old war wound? How
>> come it doesn't show up in his pre-mortem X-rays?
>>
>
> Not at all. I am probably the only JFK researcher to study lung bruises.
> The bruise on Kennedy's lung could not have been created by the passage of
> a nearby bullet, and could only have been created by the impact of a
> bullet on bone overlying the lung. T-1 lays across the top of the lung
> where the bruise was discovered. It follows then that a projectile hit T-1
> and caused the bruise.
>

You don't know that for a fact. And it is the pressure wave of the
passing bullet which does the bullet itself.

>>> Holy moly, what hooha!
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No. No one said high-velocity. Humes said Ice bullet.

> bullet entered Kennedy's neck/back and left no probe-able pathway through
> the outer muscle. That's ridiculous. I've read hundreds of autopsy
> protocols and summaries over the years and have never come across another
> in which A bullet traveling at any velocity was purported to have entered
> the body without leaving a probe-able entrance. Bullets don't bounce off

You never probe bullet wound. You dissect it.

You are not a forensic pathologist so don't pretend to know what you are
talking about.

> skin while traveling at a high velocity, and the wound tracks of these
> bullets within the body don't just disappear. It follows then that the

Of course they can disappear. But they can be documented by dissection.

> bullet creating this wound was not traveling at a high velocity. It's the

No, it doesn't. You can't be sure of the velocity. I can. Stop creating
the straw man of a "high velocity" bullet. Not in Dealey Plaza.

[bigdog]

Name one qualfied medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence who has not concluded that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him. This is elementary stuff for any experienced ME. It is quite easy to establish who qualified medical examiners are. The courts make these judgements all the time in allowing a medical examiner to offer expert testimony regarding the medical evidence. Usually the prosecution calls the medical examiner and the defense has the right to question his credentials if it so chooses. Rarely is that done. Usually the defense will stipulate to the MEs qualifications. Oocasionally the defense might call its own ME to rebut what the prosecutions ME has testified to. In the case of the JFK assassination, there simply are no such qualified MEs who dispute that two bullets hit JFK from behind. If there were, you are someone else could identify them. Of course neither you nor any other conspiracy hobbyist is able to do so. They don't exist.

> > But given your theory of a low velocity bullet making just a shallow entry
> > into JFK's back, you have the same dilemma I have been presenting Chris
> > with the past few weeks. Do you know how slowly a bullet would have to be
> > traveling to make such a shallow penetration into soft tissue. By
> > comparison, the bullet Ruby shot Oswald with was a .38 Special which
> > entered the left side of Oswald's abdomen and went completely through to
> > his right side, creating a bulge without breaking the skin. The .38
> > Special typical has a muzzle velocity in the 800-900 fps range. You are
> > proposing a bullet with a velocity just a fraction of the Ruby bullet.
> > What the hell kind of bullet do you think that would be and why would
> > someone who was trying to kill a POTUS use such a pipsqueak of a round.
>
> The CIA's manual on assassination recommended the use of .22 cal subsonic
> rounds,

Cite? I wasn't aware the CIA made the assassination manual available to
the public.

> and said they were effective up to a hundred yards. A trained
> sniper using such a round would probably aim high.

If you are talking about the 22LR, that is a pipsqueak of a bullet and if
you expect to kill someone with it, you better be up close and personal
and shoot the intended victim in the head, preferably multiple times. Only
an idiot would try to kill someone with it at any significant range. If
you are talking about a .223 now you are into small caliber high velocity
ammo which is going to penetrate far more than an inch or two into soft
tissue. In fact such a round would likely fragment when striking the
victim. It was the choice of the DC snipers and most of their kills were
the result of fragmenting bullets.

> If firing from above,
> moreover, he would have a tendency to aim high, as the bullet drop one
> would normally expect would be greatly reduced. It follows, then, that if
> a bullet aimed at the head was fired at 350 fps or so it would arrive a
> bit late and land a bit low...on the back.
>

Who the hell makes a .22 with a 350 fps velocity. You might as well shoot
somebody with a BB gun. Typical muzzle velocities for the 22LR are in the
1200-1640 fps range. On top of that, the arithmetic won't work for you.
Tell us the range your 350 fps could be fired from so that it would only
drop from the head to the upper back. Hint: You better have that shooter
damn close to the intended target.

> > And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
> > have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
> > gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
> > from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
> > range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
> > just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
> > proposing.
> >
> > The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
> > reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
> > The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> > position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> > just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
> > rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> > understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> > probled.
>
> This viable answer is DOA. Feel free to read dozens of articles on wound
> ballistics, and hundreds of autopsy protocols. You won't find any mention
> of high-velocity wounds to the back that couldn't be probed.

You are negating the question. You have been asked to show any bullet
which had sufficient velocity to hit the intended target from any
significant distance yet would be so weak it would only penetrate an inch
once it got there. Not such bullet exists. You can't thread that
needle.

> This is yet
> another example of where the "experts" have blown smoke in our eyes to
> hide that the "official" explanation for Kennedy's wounds makes no sense,
> and is totally at odds with what one will find elsewhere.

This is another fine example of a conspiracy hobbyist pretending he knows
more than qualified people because the opinions of qualified people are
incompatable with the conspiracy hobbyist's beliefs. And of course it must
be the experts who are wrong because the conspiracy hobbyists knows it
couldn't be his beliefs which are FUBAR.

The short answer is that the theory of a shallow penetrating bullet is
preposterous.

[bigdog]

Both Reagan and Roosevelt were shot at close range which eliminates the
problem of gravitational drop preventing the bullet from reaching the
target. Yhe bullet that hit Reagan in the side penetrated almost to his
heart.

> > And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
> > have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
> > gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
> > from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
> > range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
> > just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
> > proposing.
>
> So what? That's not our problem. That's your problem due to the false
> assumptions you add to your straw man arguments.
>

Our? Have you switched sides. You are on record as believing the bullet
passed completely through JFK but you are taking the opposite point of
view because you think disagreeing with everybody makes you look smart. It
isn't working.

> >
> > The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
> > reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
>
> By guesswork.
> Of course the bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
> But you have no basis to claim that a shallow wound is physically
> impossible.
>

It is impossible to do from any significant range because in order for the
bullet to be so week it would only penetrate and inch, it would have to
have an extremely low velocity. If it had such a low velocity, it could
not have reached the target unless the shooter knew he was firing an
extremely low veolocity round and adjusted either his sights or his aiming
point to compensate for the severe drop. So why would someone who was
trying to kill the POTUS select such a ridiculously low velocity round?

> > The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> > position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> > just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
>
> Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
> something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
> wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?
>
> > rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> > understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> > probled.
> >
>
>
> Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
> Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.

I have stated on numerous occassions it was a mistake to not use a medical
examiner experience in gunshot homicides but we don't get a do over for
that mistake so we have to make do with what we got. What we got was
sufficient evidence to convince every ME who reviewed the medical evidence
that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit him in
the back exited from his throat.

[Anthony Marsh]

From what gun? 350 fps is unrealistic. Certainly not from Oswald's
rifle or any other Carcano.
You don't even have the manual on silencers. I do.
The CIA's standard issue .22 Hi-Standard with silencer had a muzzle
velocity of 930 fps with a 40 grain bullet.
The .32 Silenced Welrod pistol had a muzzle velocity of 770fps with a 77
grain bullet.
The 9mm Walther P38 had a muzzle velocity of 925 fps with a 115 grain
bullet.
These are just regular off the shelf guns available to anybody back
then. You are not allowed to ask about custom designed guns for specific
operations.

[mainframetech]

I encountered an interesting tale. A fellow named Schaeffer said that
he had enlarged a photo of the limousine backseat and found a bullet hole
in it high up. If a bullet were fired at JFK and hit the limo instead, it
would slow the bullet down dramatically, and when it hit JFK, it may only
go in an inch. Now this is only one possibility or many, but it fits the
situation. Another is the use of a sabot, which if not done exactly
right, would slow the bullet down too.

Chris

> > > The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> > > position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> > > just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
> >
> > Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
> > something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
> > wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?
> >
> > > rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> > > understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> > > probled.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
> > Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.
>
> I have stated on numerous occassions it was a mistake to not use a medical
> examiner experience in gunshot homicides but we don't get a do over for
> that mistake so we have to make do with what we got. What we got was
> sufficient evidence to convince every ME who reviewed the medical evidence
> that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit him in
> the back exited from his throat.

Pierre Finck was indeed familiar with autopsies that involved bullet
wounds. But the medical panels were kept in the dark, so it doesn't
matter what their background was, they didn't have the information to make
informed decisions, so they went with the silly Autopsy Report, which was
full of conflicts and errors, and disagreed with the prosectors DURING the
autopsy.

Chris

[mainframetech]

OK, my turn. As it turns out, there IS a case where a 'weak' bullet hit
the back of JFK and penetrated only an inch or so. That was determined by
the prosectors at the autopsy. When they discovered the bullet wound in
the back, they began investigating it first by probing it with the chrome
probe and then fingers. They were unable to go further than about an inch
into the wound and were stopped. When they were doing that, James Jenkins
says that he was looking into the body cavity which had the lungs removed,
and he could SEE the probe rubbing against the pleura, and he could see
that there was NO path anywhere for the bullet to go any further.

They looked for the bullet, and a path for it, and finally concluded
"There's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body of JFK! This was concluded
by Pierre Finck, the expert, as well as all the others. Humes at one
point suggested that the bullet had been worked out during heart massage
at Parkland, meaning that he believed there was a very short path for the
bullet, such as an inch, otherwise why think the bullet worked out of the
wound? If it had been found to have gone through the body, then he would
never have suggested such a silly thing. But he knew that the bullet
hadn't gone far into JFK at all.

The autopsy Report tried to cover up the findings of the prosectors,
and they were all ordered to sign it, but their findings were obvious
DURING the autopsy. It's of interest that Jerrol Custer, X-ray
Technician, stated under oath that he went to get a better shot and raised
the body up, and saw a fragment the length of a bullet fall out of the
BACK! He said that Finck grabbed it and he never saw it again.

For the prosectors concluding that "There's NO EXIT" from the body, go
here:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

For the statement of Jerrol Custer, go here:

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Good luck at the ARRB!

Chris

[bigdog]

I think "tale" is a good description of this story. Bullshit would probably be more accurate.

>
>
>
>
> > > > The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> > > > position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> > > > just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
> > >
> > > Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
> > > something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
> > > wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?
> > >
> > > > rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> > > > understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> > > > probled.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
> > > Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.
> >
> > I have stated on numerous occassions it was a mistake to not use a medical
> > examiner experience in gunshot homicides but we don't get a do over for
> > that mistake so we have to make do with what we got. What we got was
> > sufficient evidence to convince every ME who reviewed the medical evidence
> > that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit him in
> > the back exited from his throat.
>
> Pierre Finck was indeed familiar with autopsies that involved bullet
> wounds. But the medical panels were kept in the dark, so it doesn't
> matter what their background was, they didn't have the information to make
> informed decisions, so they went with the silly Autopsy Report, which was
> full of conflicts and errors, and disagreed with the prosectors DURING the
> autopsy.
>

Gee, it's a good thing we have you around to explain what the best medical
examiners in the country couldn't figure out.

[bigdog]

Do you really think repeating the same bullshit story over and over again
is going to make it come true? There is no point to keep explaining to you
why what you are proposing is so ludicrous. If you haven't figure it out
by now you never will.

[Anthony Marsh]

No determined. Stop misusing the English language. They guessed.

> the back, they began investigating it first by probing it with the chrome
> probe and then fingers. They were unable to go further than about an inch
> into the wound and were stopped. When they were doing that, James Jenkins

Maybe an inch. You can't put your little finger into a back wound only 7
mm round to a full inch.

Maybe the finger was stopped by the vertebra.

> says that he was looking into the body cavity which had the lungs removed,
> and he could SEE the probe rubbing against the pleura, and he could see
> that there was NO path anywhere for the bullet to go any further.
>
> They looked for the bullet, and a path for it, and finally concluded
> "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body of JFK! This was concluded

No, they didn't look. They were incompetent.

> by Pierre Finck, the expert, as well as all the others. Humes at one
> point suggested that the bullet had been worked out during heart massage
> at Parkland, meaning that he believed there was a very short path for the
> bullet, such as an inch, otherwise why think the bullet worked out of the
> wound? If it had been found to have gone through the body, then he would
> never have suggested such a silly thing. But he knew that the bullet
> hadn't gone far into JFK at all.
>

He also suggested maybe it was an Ice bullet.
Why would he even [SIC] suggest such a silly thing?
No answer?
Bulller?
Anybody?
Because he was incompetent. He was playing the part of Moe.

> The autopsy Report tried to cover up the findings of the prosectors,
> and they were all ordered to sign it, but their findings were obvious
> DURING the autopsy. It's of interest that Jerrol Custer, X-ray
> Technician, stated under oath that he went to get a better shot and raised
> the body up, and saw a fragment the length of a bullet fall out of the
> BACK! He said that Finck grabbed it and he never saw it again.
>

F**K Custer. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Show us your source. Stop making up rumors and then saying that you
heard some rumor. SHOW me the hole.
Now, because you know nothing about the limo, I'll gentle with you.
There is no way to shoot into the back of the limo and have a bullet hit
JFK. The seat lifting mechanism is in the way.
But some kook did have a theory that maybe the shooter was HIDING in the
trunk. Like You he did not realize there was no room due to the seat
lifting mechanism. You don't even know where to find a photo of the
mechanism.

>
>
>
>>>> The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
>>>> position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
>>>> just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
>>>
>>> Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
>>> something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
>>> wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?
>>>
>>>> rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
>>>> understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
>>>> probled.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
>>> Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.
>>
>> I have stated on numerous occassions it was a mistake to not use a medical
>> examiner experience in gunshot homicides but we don't get a do over for
>> that mistake so we have to make do with what we got. What we got was
>> sufficient evidence to convince every ME who reviewed the medical evidence
>> that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit him in
>> the back exited from his throat.
>
> Pierre Finck was indeed familiar with autopsies that involved bullet
> wounds. But the medical panels were kept in the dark, so it doesn't
> matter what their background was, they didn't have the information to make
> informed decisions, so they went with the silly Autopsy Report, which was
> full of conflicts and errors, and disagreed with the prosectors DURING the
> autopsy.
>
> Chris
>
>

All of that nonsense doesn't matter one wit when the Army was
controlling the autopsy.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

I wasn't talking about gravitational drop. Only about shallow wounds
which you said are physically impossible.

>>> And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
>>> have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
>>> gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
>>> from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
>>> range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
>>> just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
>>> proposing.
>>
>> So what? That's not our problem. That's your problem due to the false
>> assumptions you add to your straw man arguments.
>>
>
> Our? Have you switched sides. You are on record as believing the bullet
> passed completely through JFK but you are taking the opposite point of
> view because you think disagreeing with everybody makes you look smart. It
> isn't working.
>

No. Another false charge. Didn't you see the hundreds of times that I
said his theory would not work? But I just object to your misstating
physical facts to dispute him.

>>>
>>> The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
>>> reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
>>
>> By guesswork.
>> Of course the bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
>> But you have no basis to claim that a shallow wound is physically
>> impossible.
>>
>
> It is impossible to do from any significant range because in order for the
> bullet to be so week it would only penetrate and inch, it would have to
> have an extremely low velocity. If it had such a low velocity, it could
> not have reached the target unless the shooter knew he was firing an
> extremely low veolocity round and adjusted either his sights or his aiming
> point to compensate for the severe drop. So why would someone who was
> trying to kill the POTUS select such a ridiculously low velocity round?
>

You don't know that for a fact. You are just making up a straw man argument.
Your questions are stupid. There are lots of reasons why someone might
want to use very low velocity rounds in an assassination. None of those
apply to Dealey Plaza. Look at some other assassinations where they used
silencers with low velocity subsonic rounds.

>>> The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
>>> position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
>>> just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
>>
>> Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
>> something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
>> wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?
>>
>>> rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
>>> understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
>>> probled.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
>> Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.
>
> I have stated on numerous occassions it was a mistake to not use a medical
> examiner experience in gunshot homicides but we don't get a do over for
> that mistake so we have to make do with what we got. What we got was
> sufficient evidence to convince every ME who reviewed the medical evidence
> that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit him in
> the back exited from his throat.
>

Yes, we do get a do over.
Maybe when we put the Nazis out of office.

>

[mainframetech]

If you didn't repeat your various mantras, I wouldn't repeat mine.
You're the key to much of it. And don't bother to use the word
'ludicrous', when you're talking about information that comes from sworn
testimony. You'll try anything to cover up the fact that this info is
from the official records.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Well, of course. You'll fulfill your purpose in life by denying anything
you can that goes against the tired, old WCR.

The reasons were not medical, but were logical that anyone can understand. Don't bother with that old ploy of the LN kooks that say 'you can't decide that because we need someone that was qualified'. Total bull.

Chris

[bigdog]

No, I didn't. If you had better reading comprehension skills you would
understand that. Of course a shallow wound is possible. Connally received
one in his thigh but that was because the bullet had been drastically
slowed by passing through two torsos and then striking a wrist bone. What
makes his hypotheses impossible is the requirement for a bullet traveling
slow enough to make such a shallow entry and still be able to reach the
target from any significant distance.. It is the combination of the two
that makes it impossible. The two don't fit together. He needs a bullet
that is both slow and fast.

> >>> And if you are going to propose it was a weak bullet due to a misfire you
> >>> have another problem. A bullet moving that slowly will have a severe
> >>> gravitational drop which would preclude it reaching the intended target
> >>> from any significant distance. There simply is no feasible combination of
> >>> range and velocity that would allow such a bullet to reach the target with
> >>> just enough energy to make such a shallow penetration as you are
> >>> proposing.
> >>
> >> So what? That's not our problem. That's your problem due to the false
> >> assumptions you add to your straw man arguments.
> >>
> >
> > Our? Have you switched sides. You are on record as believing the bullet
> > passed completely through JFK but you are taking the opposite point of
> > view because you think disagreeing with everybody makes you look smart. It
> > isn't working.
> >
>
> No. Another false charge. Didn't you see the hundreds of times that I
> said his theory would not work? But I just object to your misstating
> physical facts to dispute him.
>

You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

> >>>
> >>> The viable answer of course is the one the trained medical examiners
> >>> reached unanimously. The bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
> >>
> >> By guesswork.
> >> Of course the bullet did pass completely through JFK's body.
> >> But you have no basis to claim that a shallow wound is physically
> >> impossible.
> >>
> >
> > It is impossible to do from any significant range because in order for the
> > bullet to be so week it would only penetrate and inch, it would have to
> > have an extremely low velocity. If it had such a low velocity, it could
> > not have reached the target unless the shooter knew he was firing an
> > extremely low veolocity round and adjusted either his sights or his aiming
> > point to compensate for the severe drop. So why would someone who was
> > trying to kill the POTUS select such a ridiculously low velocity round?
> >
>
> You don't know that for a fact.

Of course I know it for fact. It is simple arithmetic. You need a bullet
traveling just a few hundred fps. Then you need a range from which the
shot COULD have been fired from. Then you calculate the time it would take
for the bullet to reach the target from that range. From there it is a
simple matter of calculating the drop. You can plug in any numbers you
want but unless you are going to have a shooter firing and extremely slow
bullet from the Queen Mary, you can't come up with numbers that makes this
silly hypotheses work.

> You are just making up a straw man argument.
> Your questions are stupid.

If they were stupid, you or Chris would be able to answer them. But of
course there is no answer. There are no numbers that allow this to
work.

> There are lots of reasons why someone might
> want to use very low velocity rounds in an assassination.

Why don't you tell us what one of those reasons would be.

> None of those
> apply to Dealey Plaza. Look at some other assassinations where they used
> silencers with low velocity subsonic rounds.
>

We don't need to look at other assassinations. We need to look at the JFK
assassination and figure out what works and what doesn't.

> >>> The reason it could not be probed is he was in a different anatomical
> >>> position on the autopsy table then when he was shot with his right arm
> >>> just beginning to be lowered after waving to the crowd. Add to that
> >>
> >> Silly. It should never be probed. That is medical malpractice. That is
> >> something that only the Three Stooges would do. You always dissect the
> >> wound. Why didn't they? Medical malpractice?
> >>
> >>> rigormortis and it should be easy even for laymen such as you and I to
> >>> understand why there would not be a wound track that could easily be
> >>> probled.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, laymen doing an autopsy. THAT's the problem.
> >> Stealing the body from a qualified forensic pathologist.
> >
> > I have stated on numerous occassions it was a mistake to not use a medical
> > examiner experience in gunshot homicides but we don't get a do over for
> > that mistake so we have to make do with what we got. What we got was
> > sufficient evidence to convince every ME who reviewed the medical evidence
> > that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit him in
> > the back exited from his throat.
> >
>
> Yes, we do get a do over.
> Maybe when we put the Nazis out of office.
>

Are you calling Obama a Nazi? How disrespectful!!!

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I have a couple of chapters on the SBT on my free book at patspeer.com,
Tony. They're chapters 10-12. I also have a few chapters as to why I came
to believe a bullet came down the neck. This comes to a head in chapter
17.

As to your questions, they are answered in these chapters. Here's a
section on the wounding characteristics of lung tissue.

Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that the magic bullet did not pierce
the President's lung but that it nevertheless left a 5 cm wide
"pyramid-shaped" bruise on the uppermost part of the lung. Single-bullet
theorists explain this bruise by insisting that it came as a result of the
temporary cavity created by the supersonic passage of the bullet. They
claim this same cavity caused the damage to the transverse process of the
first thoracic vertebrae apparent on the x-rays.

But there are severe problems with this. First and foremost is the large
size of the cavity necessary to create such a bruise. Since the bullet,
traveling an inch or so above the lung, would presumably be at the center
of this cavity, and the bruise on the lung was around 5 cm wide, and
pyramid-shaped, the temporary cavity would presumably be around 7.5 cm, or
3 inches, wide. A study by the Biophysics Division of the Army's Chemical
Warfare Laboratory published in Military Medicine in 1957 correlates the
size of temporary cavities to permanent cavities and demonstrates that a
bullet creating a 3 inch wide temporary cavity would be likely to leave a
permanent cavity 15mm wide or better. When one considers that the passage
of this particular bullet was impossible to probe at autopsy, left the
major vessels of the neck unharmed, and left only a 3-5 mm round hole upon
exit, it seems highly unlikely such a large cavity was created...

This last point should not be overlooked. A September 2013 article in the
International Journal of Legal Medicine by Annette Thierauf et al
described a correlation between the size of the temporary cavity created
by a bullet within a body and the size of the exit wound. For this study
nine composite models incorporating gelatin blocks covered with pig soft
tissue and skin were fired upon. They used 5.56 mm ammunition. These
bullets were considerably smaller than 6.5 mm M/C bullets (62 grains vs.
162 grains), but traveled at a greater velocity (940 m/s vs. 661 m/s). The
formula used to determine the kinetic energy of a projectile is mass x
velocity x velocity. The amount of energy potentially released within the
neck, and the potential size of the temporary cavity within the neck, was
thus about 30% greater for the 6.5 M/C bullet supposedly passing through
Kennedy's neck than for the bullets used in this study.

Now, look at the size of the exit wounds discussed in the study.... Three
7.5 cm gelatin blocks were fired upon. The exit wounds on these
skin-covered blocks measured 0.9. 0.9, and 1.1 cm at their maximum
diameter. Three 16 cm gelatin blocks were fired upon. The exit wounds on
these skin-covered blocks measured 5.2, 6.3 and 6.9 cm at their maximum
diameter. And three 30 cm gelatin blocks were fired upon. The exit wounds
on these skin-covered blocks measured 1.1, 1.2, and 1.8 cm at their
maximum diameter. Well, first note that all the exit wounds are far larger
than the 3-5 mm approximation for the throat wound reported by Dr. Perry.
Now, note that the exit wounds were largest in the medium-sized blocks.
This was not an accident. The authors first fired a 5.56 bullet into a
soap block in order to determine the distance within gelatin at which the
bullet's temporary cavity was at it largest. This was at the 16 cm mark.
Their tests, then, proved that the size of an exit wound can be directly
related to the size of the temporary cavity surrounding the bullet at the
time of its exit.

Unstated but implicit is that the size of this cavity was greatest at this point because it came just after the bullet tumbled. The article noted that the bullet when fired through a soap block left small bits of metal along the second half of the wound track, just after reaching its maximum diameter. It offered "This phenomenon can be explained by bending and compressive stresses squeezing parts of the lead core out of the jacket when the yawing bullet is subjected to lateral forces." In other words, it tumbled.

Well, let's think about this. This study suggests that for a bullet to create a temporary cavity large enough to create the bruise on Kennedy's lung, the bullet would have to have tumbled, and have traveled sideways. Sideways. The magic bullet is over an inch long. For it to travel sideways through Kennedy's neck and fail to either hit bone (as purported by the doctors at Bethesda) or sever an artery (as purported by the doctors at Parkland) would make it more than a magic bullet...it would make it a miracle bullet.

This problem becomes even more problematic when one looks at the reported characteristics of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. The wound ballistics experts of the Warren Commission and HSCA, Alfred Olivier and Larry Sturdivan, respectively, testified that the bullets fired by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles were among the most stable they ever tested, and, as a result, could pass through one man and hit another with relative ease. Unspoken but implicit in their testimony, however, is that these bullets transmit less energy into the surrounding tissue than other bullets of their class and leave a narrower wound track. (This characteristic of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was not exactly unnoticed by those who make it their business to notice such things. As far back as 1897, The Columbus Medical Journal noted that "In the Abyssinian campaign of the Italians, the disabling effect of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle of 6.5 millimeters, with which they were armed, was so slight that it was thought that the ammunition had been tampered with: for the natives overcame them with frightful slaughter.")

The characteristics of lung tissue, furthermore, make this problem insurmountable. Lung is, according to the dozens of articles I've read on wound ballistics, among the least dense tissues in the body, and, as a result, "little energy transfer occurs, and temporary cavities are small." Michael S. Owen Smith made this lack of lung density and how it relates to the Kennedy assassination breathtakingly clear in the 1988 book Management of Gunshot Wounds. He said "The thorax behaves differently from the abdomen because it is largely filled with air owing to the large volume of the chest that is occupied by the lungs. Therefore, since the tissues are not mainly liquid-like, the conditions for the formation of the temporary cavity are not met. The heart and great vessels, which are filled with fluid, are extremely susceptible to damage from cavitation, and such injuries from a rifle bullet are fatal. The lung itself is remarkably resistant to damage from high-velocity bullets. Indeed, it is true to say that the lung and the skin are the two tissues that are most resistant to damage from cavitation."

And it's not as if Smith is an outlier, exaggerating what is not as apparent to his fellow doctors. Nope, even a card-carrying member of the Oswald-did-it-and-we can-all-go-back-to-sleep club like Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio admits, in his classic text Gunshot Wounds, that "Lung, with a very low density and high degree of elasticity, is relatively resistant to the effects of temporary cavity formation, and has only a very small temporary cavity formed with very little tissue destruction." Hmmm.

So what caused the bruise on Kennedy's lung?

Let's go back. Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that the bruise was 5 centimeters at its greatest diameter "and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex down towards the substance of the lung." He later repeated that it "was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue." Humes was telling the commission, then, that the bruise came to a point. Such a bruise would not be expected from a temporary cavity, which radiates in an oval, but could very well have come as a result of a bullet deflecting from an overlying bone. Articles on pulmonary contusions from gunshot wounds reflect that they are far more prominent when a bullet slaps against a rib or chest wall than when a bullet actually traverses the substance of the lung. One such article, found in a 1944 edition of Surgery, reported on a study by Dr. Rollin Daniel in which dogs were shot and immediately dissected. This study connected the level of pulmonary contusion to the amount of energy released into the adjacent non-lung tissue. If a bullet had struck the first rib resting at the top of the lung, or the adjacent transverse process of the first cervical vertebra, however, it would have been damaged far beyond the damage incurred by CE 399, the near-pristine bullet purportedly causing the bruise to Kennedy's lung.

The bruise on Kennedy's lung is suggestive, then, that a projectile other than CE 399 struck Kennedy's rib. It is at odds with the single bullet theory.

[bigdog]

Now you sound like Rossley.

[bigdog]

I love when conspiracy hobbyists play medical examiner. They come up with
all kinds of crazy ideas. Of course none of them can find a single
qualified person who agrees with their analysis.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

Perhaps some other facts might add to the information above. During
the autopsy, the prosectors noticed the back wound and began probing it
with a chrome probe and even their fingers. They were only able to go in
an inch or so. As they were probing, James Jenkins, Technologist, who was
assisting at the autopsy, looked into the body cavity where the lungs had
been removed, and he was able to see the probe rubbing against the pleura,
which was not punctured.

He also saw a bruise (contusion), but he saw it on the MIDDLE lobe of
the right lung. By seeing the pleura being rubbed by the probe from the
other side of the body, we have the information we need to explain the
whole problem with the lack of injury to the internals of JFK. The
problem is that the back wound bullet did not penetrate more than an inch.
Whether it was wet powder or any number of other possibilities that could
slow the bullet before it got to the skin, we may never know, but there's
no doubt that the bullet was stopped at the pleura an inch into the body
and stopped there. That eliminates and 'bubble' internally from a high
speed rifle bullet.

The prosectors looked for the bullet and a path for it, and found
neither. Finally they said "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for
that bullet. Humes corroborated that by saying at that point that perhaps
the bullet had worked itself out during heart massage at Parkland. In
effect saying that he knew the bullet hadn't gone in very far, and so it
was possible for it to fall out.

With the body cavity mostly empty of organs, the view was clear, and
there was NO path for the bullet to go anywhere. The probe could not pass
the pleura, and so neither could the bullet that stooped there.

There is also the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician at
the autopsy, who said that he raised the body up to get a better shot, and
he saw a fragment 3-4 sonometers long fall out of the BACK of JFK. He
said it was grabbed by Pierre Finck, and he never saw the fragment again.

Sonometers = centimeters 3-4 centimeters about the length of some
bullets.

All information above is from sworn testimony and links to it in the
ARRB files are available for whoever wants them.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Your numbers are bogus. There was no 3-5 mm hole.
And I already quoted a wound ballistic specialist say that the wound
cavity can be up to 10 times the bullet diameter.
Oswald's bullets were 6.8mm in diameter so the wound cavity could be
about 7 cm in diameter.

> This last point should not be overlooked. A September 2013 article in the
> International Journal of Legal Medicine by Annette Thierauf et al
> described a correlation between the size of the temporary cavity created
> by a bullet within a body and the size of the exit wound. For this study
> nine composite models incorporating gelatin blocks covered with pig soft
> tissue and skin were fired upon. They used 5.56 mm ammunition. These
> bullets were considerably smaller than 6.5 mm M/C bullets (62 grains vs.
> 162 grains), but traveled at a greater velocity (940 m/s vs. 661 m/s). The
> formula used to determine the kinetic energy of a projectile is mass x
> velocity x velocity. The amount of energy potentially released within the
> neck, and the potential size of the temporary cavity within the neck, was
> thus about 30% greater for the 6.5 M/C bullet supposedly passing through
> Kennedy's neck than for the bullets used in this study.
>

Apples and oranges.
And bogus numbers.

> Now, look at the size of the exit wounds discussed in the study.... Three
> 7.5 cm gelatin blocks were fired upon. The exit wounds on these
> skin-covered blocks measured 0.9. 0.9, and 1.1 cm at their maximum
> diameter. Three 16 cm gelatin blocks were fired upon. The exit wounds on
> these skin-covered blocks measured 5.2, 6.3 and 6.9 cm at their maximum
> diameter. And three 30 cm gelatin blocks were fired upon. The exit wounds

Yeah, so what?

> on these skin-covered blocks measured 1.1, 1.2, and 1.8 cm at their
> maximum diameter. Well, first note that all the exit wounds are far larger
> than the 3-5 mm approximation for the throat wound reported by Dr. Perry.

Forget Perry. He was not a forensic pathologist and only glanced at the
wound before cutting into. He did not measure it. Don't be a Harris.

> Now, note that the exit wounds were largest in the medium-sized blocks.
> This was not an accident. The authors first fired a 5.56 bullet into a
> soap block in order to determine the distance within gelatin at which the
> bullet's temporary cavity was at it largest. This was at the 16 cm mark.
> Their tests, then, proved that the size of an exit wound can be directly
> related to the size of the temporary cavity surrounding the bullet at the
> time of its exit.
>

Is that what you think?

> Unstated but implicit is that the size of this cavity was greatest at this point because it came just after the bullet tumbled. The article noted that the bullet when fired through a soap block left small bits of metal along the second half of the wound track, just after reaching its maximum diameter. It offered "This phenomenon can be explained by bending and compressive stresses squeezing parts of the lead core out of the jacket when the yawing bullet is subjected to lateral forces." In other words, it tumbled.
>
> Well, let's think about this. This study suggests that for a bullet to create a temporary cavity large enough to create the bruise on Kennedy's lung, the bullet would have to have tumbled, and have traveled sideways. Sideways. The magic bullet is over an inch long. For it to travel sideways through Kennedy's neck and fail to either hit bone (as purported by the doctors at Bethesda) or sever an artery (as purported by the doctors at Parkland) would make it more than a magic bullet...it would make it a miracle bullet.
>
> This problem becomes even more problematic when one looks at the reported characteristics of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. The wound ballistics experts of the Warren Commission and HSCA, Alfred Olivier and Larry Sturdivan, respectively, testified that the bullets fired by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles were among the most stable they ever tested, and, as a result, could pass through one man and hit another with relative ease. Unspoken but implicit in their testimony, however, is that these bullets transmit less energy into the surrounding tissue than other bullets of their class and leave a narrower wound track. (This characteristic of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was not exactly unnoticed by those who make it their business to notice such things. As far back as 1897, The Columbus Medical Journal noted that "In the Abyssinian campaign of the Italians, the disabling effect of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle of 6.5 millimeters, with which they were armed, was so slight that it was
thought
that the ammunition had been tampered with: for the natives overcame them with frightful slaughter.")
>
> The characteristics of lung tissue, furthermore, make this problem insurmountable. Lung is, according to the dozens of articles I've read on wound ballistics, among the least dense tissues in the body, and, as a result, "little energy transfer occurs, and temporary cavities are small." Michael S. Owen Smith made this lack of lung density and how it relates to the Kennedy assassination breathtakingly clear in the 1988 book Management of Gunshot Wounds. He said "The thorax behaves differently from the abdomen because it is largely filled with air owing to the large volume of the chest that is occupied by the lungs. Therefore, since the tissues are not mainly liquid-like, the conditions for the formation of the temporary cavity are not met. The heart and great vessels, which are filled with fluid, are extremely susceptible to damage from cavitation, and such injuries from a rifle bullet are fatal. The lung itself is remarkably resistant to damage from high-velocity bullets. In
deed, i
t is true to say that the lung and the skin are the two tissues that are most resistant to damage from cavitation."
>

The top of the lung was bruised, not pierced.

> And it's not as if Smith is an outlier, exaggerating what is not as apparent to his fellow doctors. Nope, even a card-carrying member of the Oswald-did-it-and-we can-all-go-back-to-sleep club like Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio admits, in his classic text Gunshot Wounds, that "Lung, with a very low density and high degree of elasticity, is relatively resistant to the effects of temporary cavity formation, and has only a very small temporary cavity formed with very little tissue destruction." Hmmm.
>
> So what caused the bruise on Kennedy's lung?
>
> Let's go back. Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that the bruise was 5 centimeters at its greatest diameter "and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex down towards the substance of the lung." He later repeated that it "was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue." Humes was telling the commission, then, that the bruise came to a point. Such a bruise would not be expected from a temporary cavity, which radiates in an oval, but could very well have come as a result of a bullet deflecting from an overlying bone. Articles on pulmonary contusions from gunshot wounds reflect that they are far more prominent when a bullet slaps against a rib or chest wall than when a bullet actually traverses the substance of the lung. One such article, found in a 1944 edition of Surgery, reported on a study by Dr. Rollin Daniel in which dogs were
shot a
nd immediately dissected. This study connected the level of pulmonary contusion to the amount of energy released into the adjacent non-lung tissue. If a bullet had struck the first rib resting at the top of the lung, or the adjacent transverse process of the first cervical vertebra, however, it would have been damaged far beyond the damage incurred by CE 399, the near-pristine bullet purportedly causing the bruise to Kennedy's lung.
>
> The bruise on Kennedy's lung is suggestive, then, that a projectile other than CE 399 struck Kennedy's rib. It is at odds with the single bullet theory.
>

That does not follow.

>
>

[mainframetech]

Ah! A twist on the usual LN whine that we need an expert to decide
things for us, because we're all so dumb. Most parts of this case are a
matter for general physics that most people learn as they grow up.

Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You keep repeating crap like slinging it against the wall to see if any
will stick.

[bigdog]

If an understanding of basic physics was all that was required to analyze
medical evidence and reach conclusions then anybody could do it and they
would reach the same conclusions as the people whose job it is to do that.
The fact that you reach conclusions that are polar opposites of what the
qualified people have to say about the medical evidence is a good
indication that not anyone can do it.

> Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
> things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
> Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)
>

Finck's conclusions are in the AR which he signed. He affirmed those when
he testified at the Clay Shaw trial. I have no reason to dispute either.
It is ridiculous to treat ideas that were floated during the fact finding
process as if they were conclusions. For some strange reason you can't
seem to understand conclusions are made at the end of a process.

You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
the author threw in the trash can.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2015 7:40 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:37:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> I love when conspiracy hobbyists play medical examiner. They come up with
>>> all kinds of crazy ideas. Of course none of them can find a single
>>> qualified person who agrees with their analysis.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah! A twist on the usual LN whine that we need an expert to decide
>> things for us, because we're all so dumb. Most parts of this case are a
>> matter for general physics that most people learn as they grow up.
>>
>
> If an understanding of basic physics was all that was required to analyze
> medical evidence and reach conclusions then anybody could do it and they

Why should an incompetent doctor have a degree in physics?

> would reach the same conclusions as the people whose job it is to do that.
> The fact that you reach conclusions that are polar opposites of what the
> qualified people have to say about the medical evidence is a good
> indication that not anyone can do it.

Another phony Argument by Authority.
You believe liars.

>
>> Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
>> things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
>> Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)
>>
>
> Finck's conclusions are in the AR which he signed. He affirmed those when
> he testified at the Clay Shaw trial. I have no reason to dispute either.
> It is ridiculous to treat ideas that were floated during the fact finding
> process as if they were conclusions. For some strange reason you can't
> seem to understand conclusions are made at the end of a process.
>
> You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
> the author threw in the trash can.
>
>

How about when he burns it and rewrites it on orders from the military?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This is the standard fall-back position for those unwilling to actually
study the case. If you'd study the case you'd find that almost every
"theory" I have comes from a textbook, many of them written by the
forensic pathologists you incorrectly assume support the single-assassin
scenario.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

You're putting your head in the sand, Tony. Take a closer look. Do the
reading. You'll find that bullets do not bruise lung tissue inches away
from the bullet track. It just doesn't happen.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 7:40:10 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:37:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > I love when conspiracy hobbyists play medical examiner. They come up with
> > > all kinds of crazy ideas. Of course none of them can find a single
> > > qualified person who agrees with their analysis.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah! A twist on the usual LN whine that we need an expert to decide
> > things for us, because we're all so dumb. Most parts of this case are a
> > matter for general physics that most people learn as they grow up.
> >
>
> If an understanding of basic physics was all that was required to analyze
> medical evidence and reach conclusions then anybody could do it and they
> would reach the same conclusions as the people whose job it is to do that.
> The fact that you reach conclusions that are polar opposites of what the
> qualified people have to say about the medical evidence is a good
> indication that not anyone can do it.
>

Tell me O Oracle of medical knowledge, can the average person tell if
there is a 'large hole' in the BOH of a body? Over 65 people saw such a
thing and knew what it meant. Death for JFK. Didn't need any doctors to
determine that. Those aren't necessarily MY conclusions, many of the
things you hear from me come from those witnesses who experience the
events that are described. So now you're really dumping on all of them.
I'm just the messenger.

> > Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
> > things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
> > Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)
> >
>
> Finck's conclusions are in the AR which he signed. He affirmed those when
> he testified at the Clay Shaw trial. I have no reason to dispute either.
> It is ridiculous to treat ideas that were floated during the fact finding
> process as if they were conclusions. For some strange reason you can't
> seem to understand conclusions are made at the end of a process.
>

WRONG, Finck's signature is on the report, but that doesn't mean that
it states his beliefs. We've got the proof of that. Since the AR has
gone far past his beliefs and turned 180 degrees into saying impossible
things. Once he was forced to sign off on the report, he had to repeat
what it said wherever he was forced to testify.

> You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
> the author threw in the trash can.

Nope, WRONG again! I want to judge on what was said that fits with
other evidence and not what is ridiculous on its face when compared with
the rest of the case. An example is that when ALL of the prosectors said
that "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body, that makes sense from
all other evidence, whereas the attempt of the AR to state that the bullet
came into the body and left by the throat wound was ridiculous.

It was shown that there was NO path for the bullet past the pleura, and
that was determined when the organ were gone from the body cavity and
Jenkins could see into the cavity and see the probe rubbing on the pleura
with NO tear or puncture in that pleura. And don't say that Jenkins was
an amateur. He was a PhD candidate in Pathology at the time.

You want to judge the case on what you see only in the final reports,
and don't dare want to hear anything that was part of the process, like
when Humes and Boswell did their clandestine 'surgery' on the body BEFORE
the autopsy.

Chris

[Mike]

That is the problem, they come from a text box and not from the evidence.
If you were taking a class in college you might get an "A" in the class
but you would not have solved the case.

This one video shows that you conclusion regarding the neck wound is not
correct...that a bullet other than CE399 caused the wound in the neck. I
suppose your conclusion is that wound is an entry wound.

But this video shows that JFK and John Connally are reacting to the same
bullet,it also shows that Connally was struck by a second bullet. Your
problem is that you relied only on the medical evidence , well , partially
on the medical evidence because you neglected the most important part of
the medical evidence and that is the opinion of Dr. Ronald Jones that if
the wound in the neck was an exit wound then it was made by a missile
moving very slow, so slow it almost lodged in the Presidents neck.

The following video shows that the neck wound is an EXIT wound because we
see Connally reacting to that same bullet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwbtP_9lPY&feature=youtu.be

So in reality the moral of this story is that you did not look at all the
evidence!

[bigdog]

OH REALLY!!! Name ONE!!! JUST FREAKING ONE forensic pathologist who has
seen the medical evidence and has not concluded that JFK was hit by shot
in the back that exited his throat and that another bullet hit him in the
back of the head. Of course we know how this ends. You won't be able to
name a single one. You are equal parts bluff and bluster.

[BT George]

Pat, you've clearly done a lot of work in support of your hypothesis.
However, BD's point is valid, even without the snark. This case has not
been examined in a corner. A great number of forensic and/or pathological
professionals have reviewed the same evidence, and more, than is available
to you or any of us in the public domain. (Most recently Peter Cummings
for the 2013 Nova Cold Case JFK Special.). Don't you find it at least a
little strange that none of them--not even Wecht (based on, as he put it,
"the available medical evidence")---have arrived at the same conclusions
as you?

BT George

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS SAID:

You want to judge the case on what you see only in the final reports, and
don't dare want to hear anything that was part of the process, like when
Humes and Boswell did their clandestine 'surgery' on the body BEFORE the
autopsy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And, of course, you can prove that Humes and Boswell altered the
body....right, Chris?

I'd love to see that "proof". Care to supply it?

[bigdog]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 1:04:02 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 7:40:10 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:37:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I love when conspiracy hobbyists play medical examiner. They come up with
> > > > all kinds of crazy ideas. Of course none of them can find a single
> > > > qualified person who agrees with their analysis.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah! A twist on the usual LN whine that we need an expert to decide
> > > things for us, because we're all so dumb. Most parts of this case are a
> > > matter for general physics that most people learn as they grow up.
> > >
> >
> > If an understanding of basic physics was all that was required to analyze
> > medical evidence and reach conclusions then anybody could do it and they
> > would reach the same conclusions as the people whose job it is to do that.
> > The fact that you reach conclusions that are polar opposites of what the
> > qualified people have to say about the medical evidence is a good
> > indication that not anyone can do it.
> >
>
>
> Tell me O Oracle of medical knowledge, can the average person tell if
> there is a 'large hole' in the BOH of a body? Over 65 people saw such a
> thing and knew what it meant. Death for JFK. Didn't need any doctors to
> determine that. Those aren't necessarily MY conclusions, many of the
> things you hear from me come from those witnesses who experience the
> events that are described. So now you're really dumping on all of them.
> I'm just the messenger.
>

Wow. We are upt to 65 now from 40 even though somebody pointed out you had
counted someone twice. As for the BOH you claim, it isn't what they saw
but what they didn't see. The didn't see the defect extend all along the
upper right side of JFK's head and was not limited to the BOH. That's what
we see in the Z-film and that's what a number of close DP witnesses
observed immediately following the head shot. And that happened BEFORE
your alleged clandestine surgery at Bethesda.

>
>
> > > Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
> > > things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
> > > Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)
> > >
> >
> > Finck's conclusions are in the AR which he signed. He affirmed those when
> > he testified at the Clay Shaw trial. I have no reason to dispute either.
> > It is ridiculous to treat ideas that were floated during the fact finding
> > process as if they were conclusions. For some strange reason you can't
> > seem to understand conclusions are made at the end of a process.
> >
>
> WRONG, Finck's signature is on the report, but that doesn't mean that
> it states his beliefs.

So you think you know what Finck believed better than Finck.

> We've got the proof of that.

No, we've got your silly baseless claims.

> Since the AR has
> gone far past his beliefs and turned 180 degrees into saying impossible
> things.

If the AR doesn't agree with his early observations if in fact he even
made them, why would you assume it is the AR that is wrong and not those
early observations? Oh that's right. The early observations are the ones
that fit our theory. Most people would put more faith in what a man signs
his name to rather than relying on a second hand account of what that man
said which was given 30 years later. But most people aren't conspiracy
hobbyists.

> Once he was forced to sign off on the report, he had to repeat
> what it said wherever he was forced to testify.
>

You've offered no evidence Finck, Humes, or Boswell were forced to sign
anythiing they didn't agree with. Just your silly ASSumptions.

>
>
> > You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
> > the author threw in the trash can.
>
>

> Nope, WRONG again! I want to judge on what was said that fits with...

...your silly beliefs.

> ...other evidence and not what is ridiculous on its face when compared with

> the rest of the case. An example is that when ALL of the prosectors said
> that "There's NO EXIT"

Oh, now all of the prosectors said "NO EXIT". They must have screamed that
too since you always put that in all caps. Up until now, you only had a
second hand report that Finck had said that. I guess we can give you the
Ed Hoffman Award for this embellishment.

> for the bullet from the body, that makes sense from
> all other evidence, whereas the attempt of the AR to state that the bullet
> came into the body and left by the throat wound was ridiculous.
>

The AR report only requiired a FMJ rifle bullet to do what a FMJ rifle
bullet would normally do and that is to pass completely through a torso
when it struck no bone. You need a bullet to do something fantastic. You
need a bullet that only penetrates one inch of soft tissue when such a
bullet by necessity would have to be traveling so slowly it would be
unable to reach the target from any significant distance. Most people who
think that is ridiculous but most people aren't conspiracy hobbyists.

> It was shown that there was NO path for the bullet past the pleura,

Only people with no training in forensic medicine would believe something
so silly.

> and
> that was determined when the organ were gone from the body cavity and
> Jenkins could see into the cavity and see the probe rubbing on the pleura
> with NO tear or puncture in that pleura. And don't say that Jenkins was
> an amateur. He was a PhD candidate in Pathology at the time.
>

The probe only went a short way in. The bullet went all the way through.
If you would pay attention to what Finck testified to at the Clay Shaw
trial, you would know that he said you can create a false passage by
forcing a probe through the bullet track. The bullet track was closed due
to the fact the muscles in JFK's back were postioned different when he was
shot than when he lay on the autopsy table. In addition, there would be
post mortem swelling of the tissue. But I guess that is too complex for
you to understand.

> You want to judge the case on what you see only in the final reports,

Right. Why would someone do that when there is so many less reliable
sources of information available.

> and don't dare want to hear anything that was part of the process, like
> when Humes and Boswell did their clandestine 'surgery' on the body BEFORE
> the autopsy.

More of your fairy tales. Of course I'm not going to pay attention to such
nonsense.

[mainframetech]

A note here. James Jenkins, Technologist, assistant at the autopsy,
stated that when he looked into the body cavity after organs had been
removed, he saw the bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the right lung. Thus,
completely eliminated any chance that there was any bullet path that all
the experts missed that somehow bypassed the lungs and pleura. And since
the AR stated that "The pleura was INTACT", nothing got past that point.
So no bullet reached the throat wound to exit and hit Connally. The SBT
is dead.

Chris

[Herbert Blenner]

One sentence from the report of the Forensic Pathology Panel is perhaps
the most underrated disclosure in the assassination literature. This
sentence described those features of the remnant throat wound, which
enabled the panel to argue that entering bullets made the transverse back
wound and the scalp wound.

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 93

(262) There is a semicircular missile defect near the center of the lower
margin of the tracheotomy incision, approximately in the midline of the
neck, with margins which are slightly denuded and reddish-brown.

End of quotation.

The denuded and discolored margin evidence an entry wound. In fact, this
panel cited these features while arguing that an entering bullet made the
transverse wound of the back.

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 86

(246) There is a sharply outlined area of red-brown to black around the
wound in which there is dried, superficial denudation of the skin,
representing a typical abrasion collar resulting from the bullet's
scraping the margins of the skin at the moment of penetration. This is
characteristic of gunshot wounds of entrance and not typical of exit
wounds. This abrasion extends around the entire circumference, but is most
prominent between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock about the defect (with the head
at 12 o'clock). In addition, there are several small linear, superficial
lacerations or tears of the skin extending radically from the margins of
the wound at 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock. These measure 0.1, 0.2
and 0.1 centimeter respectively. Photographically enhanced prints of
photographs Nos. 38 and 39 reveal much more sharply contrasted color
determination and, to some degree, more sharply outlined detail of the
abrasion collar described above.

The pathology panel also cited denudation and discoloration of the margins
to argue that an entering bullet made the scalp wound.

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 104

(296) Accurate reconstruction of the exact dimensions of the wound is
difficult because the ruler and wound are in different planes of focus.
The long axis of the wound more closely approximates a vertical angle than
that depicted within the "Autopsy Descriptive Sheet." (See fig. 6.) The
inferior margin of this wound, from 3 to 10 o'clock, is surrounded by a
crescent-shaped reddish-black area of denudation, again presenting the
appearance of an abrasion collar, resulting from the rubbing of the skin
by the bullet at the time of penetration. From 12 to 3 o'clock, there is a
suggestion of undermining, that is, tunneling of the tissue between the
skin surface and the skull. Three small linear lacerations or tears of the
skin, measuring less than 0.2 centimeter, in length, extend radially from
the margins of the defect at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 3 o'clock. (See
fig. 14, a close-up photograph of this wound.)

End of quotation.

The Forensic Pathology Panel did not explain why denuded and discolored
margins evidence entry wounds in these two cited cases and are unworthy of
elaboration in relation to the throat wound.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/28/2015 1:04 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 7:40:10 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:37:15 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I love when conspiracy hobbyists play medical examiner. They come up with
>>>> all kinds of crazy ideas. Of course none of them can find a single
>>>> qualified person who agrees with their analysis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah! A twist on the usual LN whine that we need an expert to decide
>>> things for us, because we're all so dumb. Most parts of this case are a
>>> matter for general physics that most people learn as they grow up.
>>>
>>
>> If an understanding of basic physics was all that was required to analyze
>> medical evidence and reach conclusions then anybody could do it and they
>> would reach the same conclusions as the people whose job it is to do that.
>> The fact that you reach conclusions that are polar opposites of what the
>> qualified people have to say about the medical evidence is a good
>> indication that not anyone can do it.
>>
>
>
> Tell me O Oracle of medical knowledge, can the average person tell if
> there is a 'large hole' in the BOH of a body? Over 65 people saw such a
> thing and knew what it meant. Death for JFK. Didn't need any doctors to

No, the average person can't even tell the difference between top and
back. Or left or right.

You as the average person can't tell the difference between temple and
forehead.

> determine that. Those aren't necessarily MY conclusions, many of the
> things you hear from me come from those witnesses who experience the
> events that are described. So now you're really dumping on all of them.
> I'm just the messenger.
>

Never rely on witnesses.

>
>
>>> Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
>>> things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
>>> Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)
>>>
>>
>> Finck's conclusions are in the AR which he signed. He affirmed those when
>> he testified at the Clay Shaw trial. I have no reason to dispute either.
>> It is ridiculous to treat ideas that were floated during the fact finding
>> process as if they were conclusions. For some strange reason you can't
>> seem to understand conclusions are made at the end of a process.
>>
>
> WRONG, Finck's signature is on the report, but that doesn't mean that
> it states his beliefs. We've got the proof of that. Since the AR has
> gone far past his beliefs and turned 180 degrees into saying impossible
> things. Once he was forced to sign off on the report, he had to repeat
> what it said wherever he was forced to testify.
>
>
>
>> You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
>> the author threw in the trash can.
>
>
> Nope, WRONG again! I want to judge on what was said that fits with
> other evidence and not what is ridiculous on its face when compared with
> the rest of the case. An example is that when ALL of the prosectors said
> that "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body, that makes sense from
> all other evidence, whereas the attempt of the AR to state that the bullet
> came into the body and left by the throat wound was ridiculous.
>
> It was shown that there was NO path for the bullet past the pleura, and

No.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Not at all. When one reads books and studies on forensic pathology one
finds that they are by and large followers, and in constant fear of going
against the police and prosecution. If they're told so and so confessed,
or that his fingerprints were found at the crime scene, they tend to find
reasons to believe he did it.

In this case, the autopsists, the Clark Panel, the Rocky Panel, and the
HSCA Panel were all unduly influenced by either the Justice Dept. or their
colleagues, who'd served on previous panels.

Which makes Cummings an outlier. And an outlier he is. You know, of
course, that Cummings concluded that the vast majority of his fellow
pathologists were completely out to lunch and that the bullet entered low
on the back of the head, don't you? That blows the case wide open, no
matter how many shots, or the direction of the shots in his theory.

As far as Wecht, he gave me an hour of his time at the Bethesda conference
and we have kept in touch. He was intrigued with my argument for the large
head wound on top of the skull being a tangential wound of both entrance
and exit. I can't say that he currently subscribes to the theory, but he
nodded his head in agreement with everything I said, and was certainly
open to the idea.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, or not. But, if so, you are off
base on a number of points. For nearly a decade now, I have been using
Jones' testimony--and textbooks--to support the possibility the missile
exiting the neck was traveling at a low velocity.

As far as Kennedy and Connally being hit at the same time, that is also
something to which I agree, and have pushed online. At the same time, but
not necessarily by the same bullet...

There is also, of course, the related issue that Kennedy was first hit a
few seconds earlier, just before going behind the sign...

[Anthony Marsh]

Read the damn literature. It does happen. And don't conflate. We are not
talking about inches. Millimeters.
http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783642161544-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1123947-p174037679

http://jadweb.org/pdf/JAD.Vol3.No3.pdf/2.pdf

[mainframetech]

No problem! I was hoping you'd ask. There were at least 3 witnesses
to the clandestine work that Humes and Boswell did at 6:35pm that night.
They had 42 minutes to work before the Bronze casket arrived with the
Kennedy family and the various FBI and SS agents. This early time was NOT
the scheduled autopsy, which was set for 8:00pm.

First witness was Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, assistant to Jerrol
Custer, X-ray Technician.

"Q: Were you present during the time of the first incision?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the first incision?
A: The cranium. The scalp, right here.
Q: And can you describe how that procedure -
A: Commander Humes made an incision. After
we brought all the X-rays back, we were allowed
to sit up in the podium and observe.
And commander Humes made an incision -
that I could see from my vantage point - an
incision in the forehead, and brought back the scalp.
Q: Okay.
A: Like this.
Q: And you were making a line across
the top of your forehead, roughly along the
hairline -
A: With a scalpel.
Q: And then pulling the scalp back.
A: That's correct. Just like this.
Q: And you were able to see the size of the
wound when the scalp -
A: Not from my - not from where I was, no.
The podium was a good 20 feet away.
Q: What else did you observe from where you
were with regard to any incisions or operations on
the head?
A: Well, after about 20 minutes, Commander
Humes took out a saw, and started to cut the
forehead with the bone - with the saw. Mechanical
saw. Circular, small, mechanical - almost like a
cast saw, but it's made -
Q: Sure.
A: Specifically for bone.
Q: And what did you see next?
A: We were asked to leave at that time.
Jerry Custer and myself were asked to leave."

From:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=12&tab=page
page 57-59

Next witness was Tom Robinson, Gawler's Funeral Home mortician. He had
arrived early as Humes and Boswell were beginning their clandestine work,
and he thought it was the autopsy itself, which it was NOT.

From his interview by the ARRB staff, it was stated:

Robinson listed wounds he saw separately as follows:

"- Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage
caused by pathologists):
- He saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during the
embalming...
- He described a "blow-out" which cionsisted of a flap of skin in the
right temple of the President's head...
- He described a large, open head wound i nth eback of the President's
head, centrally located right between the ears..."

From: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711#relPageId=3&tab=page

page 3 of 5

The list contains wounds but NOT anything he said was damage done by the
pathologists. He saw the damage being done the same as Edward Reed in the
morgue long BEFORE the autopsy.

When the real autopsy began at 8:00pm, the body was unwrapped from the
casket and when it was shown the FBI agents said in their report:

"Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the
President's clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a
tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area,
namely, in the top of the skull."

There was nowhere to do that "surgery of the head area" at Parkland,
and there was nothing done at the autopsy when the body was unwrapped. So
the 'surgery' of the head area, HAD to be done at the clandestine period
when Humes and Boswell got at the body while looking for bullets and
fragments.

Further, when Humes lifted out the brain from the skull, he said "The
brain just fell out into my hands", but he was trying to cover up his
prior work in the morgue when the gallery had no one in it. The reason
was that when removing a brain, you have to cut the brain stem and the
optic nerves, but they had already been cut and the brain came out right
away. Humes gave away that he had done that work sometime previous. At
one point Boswell also tried to distance himself from the 'surgery' by
asking no one in particular, "had any one done any surgery at Parkland?
(which they hadn't).

The surgery that had been done and noticed had NOT been done at
Parkland, as per the statement of Nurse Diana Bowron. She was the last
person at Parkland to see the body and her job was to wash the body and
the hair and then wrap the head in a sheet before it went into the casket.
She was helped by Nurse Henchliffe. So the body went into the casket with
NO surgery other than the tracheostomy. Yet it was seen that 'surgery'
had been done on the head, as the witnesses had seen Humes and Boswell
doing early in the evening BEFORE the autopsy.


Thank you DVP, for the opportunity to open up just one little part of
the conspiracy.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Sorry, that's not really true. The public domain info that we NOW
have, was not available to the panels that looked over a few photos and a
few X-rays and believed the Autopsy Report (AR). Many photos and X-rays
were kept away from the panels, and they had no clue about what had been
done to the body BEFORE the autopsy by Humes and Boswell.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Hate to tell you Mike, but the bullet that was supposed to come out of
the throat wound was proven not to. The prosectors proved it when they
examined the back wound and could not find the bullet or the path for it.
After searching for a wile they all said "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet
from JFK. So no bullet ever went from JFK to Connally.

The proof in in the sworn testimony of James Sibert (and Frank O'Neill),
FBI agents, who observed the whole autopsy. They recorded their notes and
wrote up a report about their experience.

As well, Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician, when he raised the body to
get a better shot, saw a 'fragment' 3-4 sonometers (centimeters) long fall
out of the BACK of JFK. Unless you can think of something else that was
there that could fall out of the BACK of JFK, it would be the bullet. It
was obvious the bullet had been slowed by something, or had compromised
powder in it, and hadn't penetrated only an inch or so into the back.

Al of the above is in sworn testimony,. and I have cites for all of it,
for those that want it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I see your reading comprehension is slipping bit by bit. I was
at 40+ for a good while there, and the '+' was the 26 people in the
gallery at the autopsy, but I wanted confirmation on them before I counted
them, so they became '+'. Claviger found a duplication in the list of
over 40+, so I corrected the list and it became 39+. But around that time
I got the confirmation that the HSCA had lied about the 26 people in the
gallery and had said that they all agreed with the autopsy photo showing
the BOH looking like a regular head with NO wounds of any kind in the
back. I got confirmation that the HSCA had lied and the 26 were asked and
they all agreed that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH as the 39+
witnesses had said. So I added 26 to 39 and got 65. Simple.

Now let's clear up your other major mistake. There was NO extended
wound around the right side or on the top of the head when the body left
Parkland. Nurse Diana Bowron was asked specifically about the damage to
the head, and she said it was all in the BOH, and NOTHING was on top or
the right side. As I note to you before, if there had been damage
anywhere else on the head, she would have known it right away by just
feeling it. The damage to the right side and part of the top was done by
Humes and Boswell at 6:35pm at Bethesda BEFORE the autopsy began.

Your trying to see something in a film that has been shown to be
altered, both by witnesses and by analyses. Especially at the frame 313
point. It was down that way do the suckers would believe there was a shot
from above and behind. That's just foolish after there has been proof.

The condition of the head as the body left Parkland has been witnessed
by many and is also here:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

The only other thing where there might be contention is the 'flap' of
bone just above the right ear. But that is NOT the extension around the
right side or the extension to the top of the head, which was all done at
Bethesda at 6:35pm by Humes and Boswell. Check the records.

> >
> >
> > > > Actually, we've had agreement from Pierre Finck about a number of
> > > > things that we see. Are you now going to throw him from the train for it?
> > > > Or pretend that he changed his mind when he signed off on the AR? :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Finck's conclusions are in the AR which he signed. He affirmed those when
> > > he testified at the Clay Shaw trial. I have no reason to dispute either.
> > > It is ridiculous to treat ideas that were floated during the fact finding
> > > process as if they were conclusions. For some strange reason you can't
> > > seem to understand conclusions are made at the end of a process.
> > >
> >
> > WRONG, Finck's signature is on the report, but that doesn't mean that
> > it states his beliefs.
>
> So you think you know what Finck believed better than Finck.
>

Yes, when he stated his beliefs I believed him DURING the autopsy.
since, in effect, he had said 2 different things, I had to choose one of
them, and I chose the casual conversation and discovery DURING the
autopsy. A conclusion which the other had agreed with.

> > We've got the proof of that.
>
> No, we've got your silly baseless claims.
>

Poke it where the sun don't shine. I didn't make a claim, I made a
statement, and it's been backed up by cites many times. Are you once
again falling back into your old habits of repeating something over and
over, then complaining that I'M repeating my replies?

> > Since the AR has
> > gone far past his beliefs and turned 180 degrees into saying impossible
> > things.
>
> If the AR doesn't agree with his early observations if in fact he even
> made them, why would you assume it is the AR that is wrong and not those
> early observations? Oh that's right. The early observations are the ones
> that fit our theory. Most people would put more faith in what a man signs
> his name to rather than relying on a second hand account of what that man
> said which was given 30 years later. But most people aren't conspiracy
> hobbyists.
>

I don't assume. The information from DURING the autopsy fit with so
many other things that there was no choice. The AR is where the problem
is.

> > Once he was forced to sign off on the report, he had to repeat
> > what it said wherever he was forced to testify.
> >
>
> You've offered no evidence Finck, Humes, or Boswell were forced to sign
> anythiing they didn't agree with. Just your silly ASSumptions.
>

I've listed my reasons for choosing to believe the statements DURING the
autopsy. YOU chose to believe anything that would support the tired old
51 year old WCR.

> >
> >
> > > You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
> > > the author threw in the trash can.
> >
> >
> > Nope, WRONG again! I want to judge on what was said that fits with

> > other evidence and not what is ridiculous on its face when compared with
> > the rest of the case. An example is that when ALL of the prosectors said
> > that "There's NO EXIT"
>
> Oh, now all of the prosectors said "NO EXIT". They must have screamed that
> too since you always put that in all caps. Up until now, you only had a
> second hand report that Finck had said that. I guess we can give you the
> Ed Hoffman Award for this embellishment.
>

Stop interrupting. It can be don to all of your statements too, you
know. Now, I've shown you the text from where ASLL the prosectors said
"There's NO EXIT", but I'll show it to you over again. Here:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that's when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that's just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn't
find any bullet.
And they said, 'There's no exit." Finck,
in particular, said, "There's no exit." And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

Note that the text FIRST said "they said, 'There's no exit." Then it
said separately "Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit."

So as I told you, they ALL said it. Meaning they all agreed.

> > for the bullet from the body, that makes sense from
> > all other evidence, whereas the attempt of the AR to state that the bullet
> > came into the body and left by the throat wound was ridiculous.
> >
>
> The AR report only requiired a FMJ rifle bullet to do what a FMJ rifle
> bullet would normally do and that is to pass completely through a torso
> when it struck no bone. You need a bullet to do something fantastic. You
> need a bullet that only penetrates one inch of soft tissue when such a
> bullet by necessity would have to be traveling so slowly it would be
> unable to reach the target from any significant distance. Most people who
> think that is ridiculous but most people aren't conspiracy hobbyists.
>

WRONG yet again! You have not provided any proof that the bullet was an
FMJ bullet. There were bullets landing all over Dealey Plaza that day,
and we don't know which was which unless we had other evidence, like the
X-ray in the case of the temple/forehead wound. Your attempt to be an
expert again doesn't make it. First ,we KNOWE that the bullet did NOT go
more than an inch into the back of JFK. It is only to figure out how that
happened, and one way is for the bullet to have hit the limo seat back and
be slowed before hitting JFK. But that 's ONLY one way, so don't grab it
and run away. I've made a list for you as to the many reasons it could
happened that the bullet was slowed down. I won't do it again, so I hope
you copied the list.

> > It was shown that there was NO path for the bullet past the pleura,
>
> Only people with no training in forensic medicine would believe something
> so silly.
>

Stop interrupting. You apparently have gone wrong again! It was that
the bullet was stopped at the pleura, and didn't go past it. It was seen
from the inside of the body cavity as well as the outside with the probe.
When the inside was seen, the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there
was no path anywhere for any bullet to go any further. This is when the
lungs and organs are removed. So try and correct your weird ideas.

> > and
> > that was determined when the organ were gone from the body cavity and
> > Jenkins could see into the cavity and see the probe rubbing on the pleura
> > with NO tear or puncture in that pleura. And don't say that Jenkins was
> > an amateur. He was a PhD candidate in Pathology at the time.
> >
>
> The probe only went a short way in. The bullet went all the way through.

WRONG! Wow! You love to go astray with total bull! Try not to step
into it! The probe went in to the pleura and stopped (about an inch).
It was seen from the inside of the body cavity and the probe was seen
rubbing on the pleura and there was NO path from there to anywhere else.

> If you would pay attention to what Finck testified to at the Clay Shaw
> trial, you would know that he said you can create a false passage by
> forcing a probe through the bullet track. The bullet track was closed due
> to the fact the muscles in JFK's back were postioned different when he was
> shot than when he lay on the autopsy table. In addition, there would be
> post mortem swelling of the tissue. But I guess that is too complex for
> you to understand.
>

There was NO bullet track, as per the prosectors, and they all agreed.
Even the AR said it was hard to prove, and then failed to prove it...:)

You weren't listening to the truth above. There was NO track or path
for the bullet to travel on. Finck was forced to say the same things he
was forced to sign off on, so that's not worth anything. When the probe
was SEEN from the inside cavity, it was clear with the organs removed,
that there was NO (repeat 'NO') path from there. It had nothing to do
with tissues closing up or anything similar. here just plain wasn't a
path, and it was easy to see with the organs removed. And the bruise is
in contention, since Jenkins saw it on the MIDDLE lobe of the right lung,
not the top lobe!

> > You want to judge the case on what you see only in the final reports,
>
> Right. Why would someone do that when there is so many less reliable
> sources of information available.
>

Or more reliable sources, because of the final report being the place
chosen to try to fool the suckers. No one thought the findings from
DURING the autopsy would become public...:)

>
> > and don't dare want to hear anything that was part of the process, like
> > when Humes and Boswell did their clandestine 'surgery' on the body BEFORE
> > the autopsy.
>
> More of your fairy tales. Of course I'm not going to pay attention to such
> nonsense.

Any idea how silly you sound when I make it clear again that the "fairy
tales" are actually sworn testimony from the ARRB...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

What a load of crap.

[mainframetech]

While the above has value, after hearing the sworn testimony that I
have quoted here in the past, I'm surprised that not one person seems
interested that the upper back bullet wound NEVER came out through the
throat wound. If that's true, then the proof that the throat wound is of
entry is satisfied more simply than trying to prove it based on
appearance.

The proof of the contention that the back wound bullet never went past
an inch or so into the back was made by the prosectors themselves, with an
FBI agent reporting what they saw and spoke about. They clearly decided
that there was "NO EXIT" for the bullet through the throat wound. The
statement in the Autopsy Report (AR) also says the same, since it says
that the "pleura was INTACT", meaning that no bullet could get past that
point to go further.

But to top all that off, a third reason for the back wound bullet to
never leave via the throat wound is that Jerrol Custer, X-ray technician
saw a 'fragment' an inch or and inch and a half long fall out of the BACK
of JFK as he was raising the body for a better X-ray shot. The bullet was
grabbed by Pierre Finck and was never seen again.

There are 3 reasons above that the throat wound was a wound of
entrance. If any 2 of them are discredited, the last one is sufficient to
prove the point. Links will be provided for those that want them, and all
the above comes from sworn testimony.

Chris

[Mike]

Your theory is that the back wound was a very shallow wound and that the
bullet fell out of JFK's back into the limo. You think it struck JFK near
frame 190. You think that bullet fell out of JFK's back and into the limo
and I suppose ended up on JFK's stretcher at Parkland and not Connally's
stretcher. ( I understand now why you are trying to put CE399 on JFK's
stretcher and not Connally's stretcher. )

Your theory is that another bullet struck JFK in the back of the head at
the hairline and exited the throat at frame 222. You say that Connally was
struck by a third bullet less than a second later fired by a
semi-automatic weapon.


First, there is no video evidence to support your belief that JFK was hit
at frame 190. We can see JFK until frame 205 and we see no motion of JFK
that indicates he is reacting to being struck by a bullet. It is this
bullet that you say was under-charged, not the bullet that exited the
neck.

Second, you say that a second bullet struck JFK at frame 222 in the back
of the head at the hairline and exited the throat. Where is the medical
evidence for this wound? This a completely new wound tract that you have
added. You add this wound tract because of the contusion on the top of the
lung and your belief that the temporary cavity was too small to create it
from a single back-to-throat shot.

If I believe what you just told me, you believe Dr. Jones testimony
regarding the speed of the bullet which exited the throat, meaning, that
it exited with a slow exit velocity.Therefore you have two under-charged
bullets, one which fell out of JFK's back and one which exited JFK's
throat.

Where is your evidence for the back of the head entry wound at the
hairline and how does this solve your problem with the lung contusion?

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, that's an odd way to phrase it. Just because they couldn't the
bullet you think there was wound?
And they could not find the path because they were not allowed to
dissect the wound as they normally would do. You can't blame them for
that. They were just following orders.

> After searching for a wile they all said "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet
> from JFK. So no bullet ever went from JFK to Connally.
>

That does not follow logically. Just because they couldn't find
something does not mean it did not exist. Do you agree that there was a
throat wound? They couldn't see it, therefore I guess it didn't exist.
That's what Piaget found that 3-year-olds thought about reality.
If you can't see it then it doesn't exist.

> The proof in in the sworn testimony of James Sibert (and Frank O'Neill),
> FBI agents, who observed the whole autopsy. They recorded their notes and
> wrote up a report about their experience.
>

They only wrote down what they heard the doctors say. They did not
examine the body themselves.

> As well, Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician, when he raised the body to
> get a better shot, saw a 'fragment' 3-4 sonometers (centimeters) long fall
> out of the BACK of JFK. Unless you can think of something else that was
> there that could fall out of the BACK of JFK, it would be the bullet. It
> was obvious the bullet had been slowed by something, or had compromised
> powder in it, and hadn't penetrated only an inch or so into the back.
>

Never happened.

[Anthony Marsh]

We don't have public domain. We have leaked copies.
The originals are still locked up in the National Archives.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/29/2015 11:33 AM, mainframetech wrote:

Which panel believed the autopsy report? The WC? They didn't even see
the photos and X-rays.

[bigdog]

In other words, they were unaware of the fairy tales you have come to
accept as gospel.

[bigdog]

Move over, Harris. There's a new sheriff in Desperateville.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/29/2015 11:32 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 4:18:27 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> CHRIS SAID:
>>
>> You want to judge the case on what you see only in the final reports, and
>> don't dare want to hear anything that was part of the process, like when
>> Humes and Boswell did their clandestine 'surgery' on the body BEFORE the
>> autopsy.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> And, of course, you can prove that Humes and Boswell altered the
>> body....right, Chris?
>>
>> I'd love to see that "proof". Care to supply it?
>
>
>
> No problem! I was hoping you'd ask. There were at least 3 witnesses
> to the clandestine work that Humes and Boswell did at 6:35pm that night.
> They had 42 minutes to work before the Bronze casket arrived with the
> Kennedy family and the various FBI and SS agents. This early time was NOT
> the scheduled autopsy, which was set for 8:00pm.
>

Silly. The autopsy was not scheduled to start at exactly 8:00 PM. Show
me where that's written into the scheduling book.

> First witness was Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, assistant to Jerrol
> Custer, X-ray Technician.
>
> "Q: Were you present during the time of the first incision?
> A: Yes.
> Q: What was the first incision?
> A: The cranium. The scalp, right here.
> Q: And can you describe how that procedure -
> A: Commander Humes made an incision. After
> we brought all the X-rays back, we were allowed
> to sit up in the podium and observe.

Podium? Sounds like a janitor to me.

So indeed it was Humes who did the surgery to the head to remove the brain.

> From:
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=12&tab=page
> page 57-59
>
> Next witness was Tom Robinson, Gawler's Funeral Home mortician. He had
> arrived early as Humes and Boswell were beginning their clandestine work,
> and he thought it was the autopsy itself, which it was NOT.
>
> From his interview by the ARRB staff, it was stated:
>
> Robinson listed wounds he saw separately as follows:
>
> "- Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage
> caused by pathologists):

You have no justification to start adding your parenthetical comments.
Shameful.

> - He saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during the
> embalming...
> - He described a "blow-out" which cionsisted of a flap of skin in the
> right temple of the President's head...
> - He described a large, open head wound i nth eback of the President's
> head, centrally located right between the ears..."
>

AFTER the brain had been removed. DUH!

> From: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711#relPageId=3&tab=page
>
> page 3 of 5
>
> The list contains wounds but NOT anything he said was damage done by the
> pathologists. He saw the damage being done the same as Edward Reed in the
> morgue long BEFORE the autopsy.
>
> When the real autopsy began at 8:00pm, the body was unwrapped from the
> casket and when it was shown the FBI agents said in their report:
>
> "Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the
> President's clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a
> tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area,
> namely, in the top of the skull."
>

Quoting Humes.

> There was nowhere to do that "surgery of the head area" at Parkland,

That is not true, but it is not germane.

> and there was nothing done at the autopsy when the body was unwrapped. So
> the 'surgery' of the head area, HAD to be done at the clandestine period
> when Humes and Boswell got at the body while looking for bullets and
> fragments.
>

No. Humes was an idiot. He saw the gauze in the head wound and ASSuMEd
that it was left over from surgery.

> Further, when Humes lifted out the brain from the skull, he said "The
> brain just fell out into my hands", but he was trying to cover up his

That's usually what happens.

> prior work in the morgue when the gallery had no one in it. The reason
> was that when removing a brain, you have to cut the brain stem and the
> optic nerves, but they had already been cut and the brain came out right
> away. Humes gave away that he had done that work sometime previous. At
> one point Boswell also tried to distance himself from the 'surgery' by
> asking no one in particular, "had any one done any surgery at Parkland?
> (which they hadn't).
>

Those may have been cut by the explosion in the head.

> The surgery that had been done and noticed had NOT been done at
> Parkland, as per the statement of Nurse Diana Bowron. She was the last
> person at Parkland to see the body and her job was to wash the body and
> the hair and then wrap the head in a sheet before it went into the casket.
> She was helped by Nurse Henchliffe. So the body went into the casket with
> NO surgery other than the tracheostomy. Yet it was seen that 'surgery'
> had been done on the head, as the witnesses had seen Humes and Boswell
> doing early in the evening BEFORE the autopsy.
>

No. Humes just ASSuMEd that there had been surgery to the top of the head.

[bigdog]

So your answer is you decided to count them as supporting your silly
theory even though the record indicates what they said conflicts with it.

> Now let's clear up your other major mistake. There was NO extended
> wound around the right side or on the top of the head when the body left
> Parkland. Nurse Diana Bowron was asked specifically about the damage to
> the head, and she said it was all in the BOH, and NOTHING was on top or
> the right side. As I note to you before, if there had been damage
> anywhere else on the head, she would have known it right away by just
> feeling it. The damage to the right side and part of the top was done by
> Humes and Boswell at 6:35pm at Bethesda BEFORE the autopsy began.
>

Once you start with this silliness, it's time to check out.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly.

Then stop quoting them.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe he did tell the truth, in the FIRST autopsy report. So he had to
burn it.

>> Once he was forced to sign off on the report, he had to repeat
>> what it said wherever he was forced to testify.
>>
>
> You've offered no evidence Finck, Humes, or Boswell were forced to sign
> anythiing they didn't agree with. Just your silly ASSumptions.
>

Who said agree?

>>
>>
>>> You don't want to judge a book by its cover. You want to judge it by what
>>> the author threw in the trash can.
>>
>>
>> Nope, WRONG again! I want to judge on what was said that fits with...
>
> ...your silly beliefs.
>
>> ...other evidence and not what is ridiculous on its face when compared with
>> the rest of the case. An example is that when ALL of the prosectors said
>> that "There's NO EXIT"
>
> Oh, now all of the prosectors said "NO EXIT". They must have screamed that
> too since you always put that in all caps. Up until now, you only had a
> second hand report that Finck had said that. I guess we can give you the
> Ed Hoffman Award for this embellishment.
>
>> for the bullet from the body, that makes sense from
>> all other evidence, whereas the attempt of the AR to state that the bullet
>> came into the body and left by the throat wound was ridiculous.
>>
>
> The AR report only requiired a FMJ rifle bullet to do what a FMJ rifle
> bullet would normally do and that is to pass completely through a torso
> when it struck no bone. You need a bullet to do something fantastic. You

No, Humes thought it was an ice bullet.

> need a bullet that only penetrates one inch of soft tissue when such a
> bullet by necessity would have to be traveling so slowly it would be
> unable to reach the target from any significant distance. Most people who
> think that is ridiculous but most people aren't conspiracy hobbyists.
>

Of course it's ridiculous, but you don't know enough about guns to say
it is physically impossible.

>> It was shown that there was NO path for the bullet past the pleura,
>
> Only people with no training in forensic medicine would believe something
> so silly.
>
>> and
>> that was determined when the organ were gone from the body cavity and
>> Jenkins could see into the cavity and see the probe rubbing on the pleura
>> with NO tear or puncture in that pleura. And don't say that Jenkins was
>> an amateur. He was a PhD candidate in Pathology at the time.
>>
>
> The probe only went a short way in. The bullet went all the way through.
> If you would pay attention to what Finck testified to at the Clay Shaw
> trial, you would know that he said you can create a false passage by
> forcing a probe through the bullet track. The bullet track was closed due

I like your theory better, but you still won't dare to explain why they
didn't DISSECT the back wound. You are afraid to say the word cover-up.

> to the fact the muscles in JFK's back were postioned different when he was
> shot than when he lay on the autopsy table. In addition, there would be
> post mortem swelling of the tissue. But I guess that is too complex for
> you to understand.
>

Please tell us more about this post mortem swelling.

>> You want to judge the case on what you see only in the final reports,
>
> Right. Why would someone do that when there is so many less reliable
> sources of information available.
>
>
>> and don't dare want to hear anything that was part of the process, like
>> when Humes and Boswell did their clandestine 'surgery' on the body BEFORE
>> the autopsy.
>
> More of your fairy tales. Of course I'm not going to pay attention to such
> nonsense.
>
>

You refuse to pay attention to anything.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

> BT George
>

[BT George]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 9:22:42 PM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 1:17:11 PM UTC-7, BT George wrote:
> > Pat, you've clearly done a lot of work in support of your hypothesis.
> > However, BD's point is valid, even without the snark. This case has not
> > been examined in a corner. A great number of forensic and/or pathological
> > professionals have reviewed the same evidence, and more, than is available
> > to you or any of us in the public domain. (Most recently Peter Cummings
> > for the 2013 Nova Cold Case JFK Special.). Don't you find it at least a
> > little strange that none of them--not even Wecht (based on, as he put it,
> > "the available medical evidence")---have arrived at the same conclusions
> > as you?
> >
> > BT George
>
> Not at all. When one reads books and studies on forensic pathology one
> finds that they are by and large followers, and in constant fear of going
> against the police and prosecution. If they're told so and so confessed,
> or that his fingerprints were found at the crime scene, they tend to find
> reasons to believe he did it.
>
> In this case, the autopsists, the Clark Panel, the Rocky Panel, and the
> HSCA Panel were all unduly influenced by either the Justice Dept. or their
> colleagues, who'd served on previous panels.
>

That may be true to an extent (see below). However all 17 or 18 of them
that have examined the body or numerous autopsy photographs (only few of
which have made it to the public domain, and some of which have are said
to be of poor quility) over a period spanning 50 years have arrived at
substantially similar conclusions regarding the back wound. As far as I
can recall, even Cyril Wecht agreed that, based on the evidence he had
before him, the same bullet which entered JFK's back had exited his
throat. Though he did/does vigourously dispute the SBT conclusion.

> Which makes Cummings an outlier. And an outlier he is. You know, of
> course, that Cummings concluded that the vast majority of his fellow
> pathologists were completely out to lunch and that the bullet entered low
> on the back of the head, don't you? That blows the case wide open, no
> matter how many shots, or the direction of the shots in his theory.
>

I am well aware of that. Moreover, since the original autopsists found the
same thing when they were examining the actual *body* and since Joe Davis
(per John Canal) reportedly had some reservations about the "Cowlick"
entry when he was a member of the HSCA FPP and has since changed his mind,
that brings the count of 5 pathologists of forensic pathologists who've
lent credence to the lower entry site.

Indeed for that reason (plus the fact that Larry Sturdivan and Chad
Zimmerman both came back from their 2004 viewing the autopsy originals at
the NA convinced lower-entry point believers and posted some convincing
arguments in its favor) I am personally a BOH exact entry point agnostic
at the present time.

In fact, I think that matter should be revisited by a team of FP's with
*NO* connection to the prior panels, so as to weed out any bias that may
have existed among the succeeding panels to find a way to endorse what the
Clark Panel (headed up by the hugely respected Fisher) had concluded.
Findings that are open to criticism because they were based solely on
reviewing the photos with no apparent attempt to discuss and try to
reconcile the discrepancy with HBF at all.

> As far as Wecht, he gave me an hour of his time at the Bethesda conference
> and we have kept in touch. He was intrigued with my argument for the large
> head wound on top of the skull being a tangential wound of both entrance
> and exit. I can't say that he currently subscribes to the theory, but he
> nodded his head in agreement with everything I said, and was certainly
> open to the idea.

Based on the way you describe it, I'm not certain whether it's safe to
conclude he was smiling and nodding in actual agreement, merely
aknowledging the theoretic possibility, or kindly humoring a dedicated
fellow CT. Nevertheless, I think it falls short of getting even his
unquestioned endorsement of your ideas; thus supporting the original
objection that you still have no actual forensic professional's
endorsement of them.

IOW, you've built an elaborate working theory and believe it's valid based
on your understanding of the medical literature and science, but have not
yet managed to induce a single trained technician to support---at least
publicly---its veracity.

BT George

[bigdog]

Nobody is interested because everyone knows how ridiculous that is. Now
you know how Bob Harris feels. You are both a cult of one. The only
difference is the myth you choose to embrace.

> If that's true, then the proof that the throat wound is of
> entry is satisfied more simply than trying to prove it based on
> appearance.
>

Of course it isn't true.

> The proof of the contention that the back wound bullet never went past
> an inch or so into the back was made by the prosectors themselves,

Time to zone out....

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[mainframetech]

The check was done on the gallery and they found they were all in
agreement with the BOH having a 'large hole', just like the 65...:) How
could they disagree with 39 eyewitnesses that all saw the same thing?

> > Now let's clear up your other major mistake. There was NO extended
> > wound around the right side or on the top of the head when the body left
> > Parkland. Nurse Diana Bowron was asked specifically about the damage to
> > the head, and she said it was all in the BOH, and NOTHING was on top or
> > the right side. As I note to you before, if there had been damage
> > anywhere else on the head, she would have known it right away by just
> > feeling it. The damage to the right side and part of the top was done by
> > Humes and Boswell at 6:35pm at Bethesda BEFORE the autopsy began.
> >
>
> Once you start with this silliness, it's time to check out.

I started with the sworn testimony, and I know you can't take that.
The damage that Humes and Boswell did to the head of JFK BEFORE the
autopsy, was in sworn testimony and official statement. Seen by 3
witnesses, Ed Reed, Tom Robinson, and Jerrol Custer. It was later noticed
by the 2 FBI agents (James Sibert and Frank O'Neill) who were observing
the whole autopsy.

Chris

[mainframetech]

How does it feel to piss on someone's sworn testimony? Especially with
no proof of anything, just your opinions.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! They were unaware of the FACTS that came out of the ARRB files.
Your "fairy tales" came out of the WCR so many years ago.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I can be helpful here. The back wound WAS a shallow wound alright, but
it wasn't seen until the autopsy, when Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician,
was raising the body to get a better X-ray shot, whe nhe saw a 'fragment'
fall out of JFK's BACK and fall to the table. It was grabbed by Pierre
Finck ,and that was the last it was seen. That comes from the ARRB sworn
Testimony of Jerrol Custer:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I'd say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That's the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That's about,
I'd say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53



> Your theory is that another bullet struck JFK in the back of the head at
> the hairline and exited the throat at frame 222. You say that Connally was
> struck by a third bullet less than a second later fired by a
> semi-automatic weapon.
>
>
> First, there is no video evidence to support your belief that JFK was hit
> at frame 190. We can see JFK until frame 205 and we see no motion of JFK
> that indicates he is reacting to being struck by a bullet. It is this
> bullet that you say was under-charged, not the bullet that exited the
> neck.
>

Since the back wound was an entry and shallow, the throat wound was an
entry too. The SBT is dead.

> Second, you say that a second bullet struck JFK at frame 222 in the back
> of the head at the hairline and exited the throat. Where is the medical
> evidence for this wound? This a completely new wound tract that you have
> added. You add this wound tract because of the contusion on the top of the
> lung and your belief that the temporary cavity was too small to create it
> from a single back-to-throat shot.
>

The contusion (bruise) on the apex of the right lung is in contention,
since James Jenkins, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy saw the
inside cavity and saw that the right lung had a bruise on the MIDDLE lobe
of the lung. But it doesn't matter since no bullet got past the pleura,
which "was intact" as per the Autopsy Report (AR).

> If I believe what you just told me, you believe Dr. Jones testimony
> regarding the speed of the bullet which exited the throat, meaning, that
> it exited with a slow exit velocity.Therefore you have two under-charged
> bullets, one which fell out of JFK's back and one which exited JFK's
> throat.
>

Since the throat was NOT an exit, it was an entry, there is no exiting
bullet.

> Where is your evidence for the back of the head entry wound at the
> hairline and how does this solve your problem with the lung contusion?

There is no problem with the lung bruise. It occurred when the 'weak'
bullet hit the pleura and the lung together and stopped there. They
couldn't find any path after the pleura.

Chris

[bigdog]

Cite? As if you could produce one.

>
>
> > > Now let's clear up your other major mistake. There was NO extended
> > > wound around the right side or on the top of the head when the body left
> > > Parkland. Nurse Diana Bowron was asked specifically about the damage to
> > > the head, and she said it was all in the BOH, and NOTHING was on top or
> > > the right side. As I note to you before, if there had been damage
> > > anywhere else on the head, she would have known it right away by just
> > > feeling it. The damage to the right side and part of the top was done by
> > > Humes and Boswell at 6:35pm at Bethesda BEFORE the autopsy began.
> > >
> >
> > Once you start with this silliness, it's time to check out.
>
>
> I started with the sworn testimony, and I know you can't take that.
> The damage that Humes and Boswell did to the head of JFK BEFORE the
> autopsy, was in sworn testimony and official statement. Seen by 3
> witnesses, Ed Reed, Tom Robinson, and Jerrol Custer. It was later noticed
> by the 2 FBI agents (James Sibert and Frank O'Neill) who were observing
> the whole autopsy.
>

Back to the nonsense. Checking out.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:53:25 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:31:18 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:25:18 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > >
> > > There is also, of course, the related issue that Kennedy was first hit a
> > > few seconds earlier, just before going behind the sign...
> >
> > While the above has value, after hearing the sworn testimony that I
> > have quoted here in the past, I'm surprised that not one person seems
> > interested that the upper back bullet wound NEVER came out through the
> > throat wound.
>
> Nobody is interested because everyone knows how ridiculous that is. Now
> you know how Bob Harris feels. You are both a cult of one. The only
> difference is the myth you choose to embrace.
>

Sorry, WRONG again! I have my information from the prosectors, not from
a report. It's more a matter of most folks being afraid that if they
contest what I've said, they will have to face the sworn testimony of the
witnesses. Easier for them to pretend unconcern and try to forget the
truth.

> > If that's true, then the proof that the throat wound is of
> > entry is satisfied more simply than trying to prove it based on
> > appearance.
> >
>
> Of course it isn't true.
>

Of course it is. Prove otherwise, and don't just quote some report.
Show how it happened, since the prosectors were unable to. Here's your
chance to act the pathologist...:)

> > The proof of the contention that the back wound bullet never went past
> > an inch or so into the back was made by the prosectors themselves,
>
> Time to zone out....
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Good, leave the floor to me. Some folks can't take it. It's hard
having to pretend that you don't believe the truth. They folds up like an
old accordion, a few wheezes and out like a light...:)

Chris

[Herbert Blenner]

Your foolishness know no bounds. You label Humes, Boswell and Finck as the
"three stooges" then have the audacity to call "silly" the reasoned
argument by the Forensic Pathology Panel, which attributed the scalp and
the transverse back wound to entering bullets.

[mainframetech]

No problem. Here you are:

In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26
people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the
autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the
photographs; none had differing accounts ... it appears more probable that
the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.

The HSCA said its statement was supported by "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." The HSCA's finding was devastating to skeptics who
believed that Parkland witnesses proved a different wound, a different bullet
trajectory, and, most importantly, a different gunman than Oswald."
======
"ARRB-released documents have revealed for the first time that the HSCA
misrepresented the statements of its own Bethesda autopsy witnesses on the
location of JFK's skull defect. The HSCA also misrepresented the Warren Com-
mission statements of the autopsy witnesses as well, that is, assuming the HSCA
author was aware of them It was not true, as the HSCA reported, that it had 26
autopsy witnesses who disagreed with the Dallas doctors. The HSCA had inter-
viewed perhaps 13 autopsy witnesses. None of them disagreed with the descrip-
tions given by the Dallas doctors. Instead, whereas over 20 witnesses at Parkland described JFK's skull defect as rearward, the HSCA's autopsy witnesses said the same thing, whether in public Warren Commission documents, or in the suppressed HSCA interviews. In fact, not a single one of the autopsy witnesses described the right-front skull wound that appears in the photographs. Assuming the photographs were accurate representations of JFK's wounds, the mystery suddenly doubled. Not only were all the witnesses' descriptions wrong, not one of them-of over 40 from two different locations-got it right!

From "Murder in Dealey Plaza" article "The Converging Medical Case for
Conspiracy" by Gary Aguilar, MD

> >
> >
> > > > Now let's clear up your other major mistake. There was NO extended
> > > > wound around the right side or on the top of the head when the body left
> > > > Parkland. Nurse Diana Bowron was asked specifically about the damage to
> > > > the head, and she said it was all in the BOH, and NOTHING was on top or
> > > > the right side. As I note to you before, if there had been damage
> > > > anywhere else on the head, she would have known it right away by just
> > > > feeling it. The damage to the right side and part of the top was done by
> > > > Humes and Boswell at 6:35pm at Bethesda BEFORE the autopsy began.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Once you start with this silliness, it's time to check out.
> >
> >
> > I started with the sworn testimony, and I know you can't take that.
> > The damage that Humes and Boswell did to the head of JFK BEFORE the
> > autopsy, was in sworn testimony and official statement. Seen by 3
> > witnesses, Ed Reed, Tom Robinson, and Jerrol Custer. It was later noticed
> > by the 2 FBI agents (James Sibert and Frank O'Neill) who were observing
> > the whole autopsy.
> >
>
> Back to the nonsense. Checking out.

Nothing new there. When the heat gets too intense, you run like hell
to escape having to find something to say to oppose the information placed
in front of you...:) This time you tried to avoid the proof I put out
that Humes and Boswell had damaged the body of JFK BEFORE the autopsy.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Never happened.

>
>
>> Your theory is that another bullet struck JFK in the back of the head at
>> the hairline and exited the throat at frame 222. You say that Connally was
>> struck by a third bullet less than a second later fired by a
>> semi-automatic weapon.
>>
>>
>> First, there is no video evidence to support your belief that JFK was hit
>> at frame 190. We can see JFK until frame 205 and we see no motion of JFK
>> that indicates he is reacting to being struck by a bullet. It is this
>> bullet that you say was under-charged, not the bullet that exited the
>> neck.
>>
>
>
> Since the back wound was an entry and shallow, the throat wound was an
> entry too. The SBT is dead.
>

Not true.

>
>
>> Second, you say that a second bullet struck JFK at frame 222 in the back
>> of the head at the hairline and exited the throat. Where is the medical
>> evidence for this wound? This a completely new wound tract that you have
>> added. You add this wound tract because of the contusion on the top of the
>> lung and your belief that the temporary cavity was too small to create it
>> from a single back-to-throat shot.
>>
>
>
> The contusion (bruise) on the apex of the right lung is in contention,
> since James Jenkins, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy saw the
> inside cavity and saw that the right lung had a bruise on the MIDDLE lobe
> of the lung. But it doesn't matter since no bullet got past the pleura,
> which "was intact" as per the Autopsy Report (AR).
>

Irrelevant and not factual.

>
>
>> If I believe what you just told me, you believe Dr. Jones testimony
>> regarding the speed of the bullet which exited the throat, meaning, that
>> it exited with a slow exit velocity.Therefore you have two under-charged
>> bullets, one which fell out of JFK's back and one which exited JFK's
>> throat.
>>
>
>
> Since the throat was NOT an exit, it was an entry, there is no exiting
> bullet.
>

If you think the throat wound was an entrance and it did not exit, where
did it go?

>
>
>> Where is your evidence for the back of the head entry wound at the
>> hairline and how does this solve your problem with the lung contusion?
>
> There is no problem with the lung bruise. It occurred when the 'weak'
> bullet hit the pleura and the lung together and stopped there. They
> couldn't find any path after the pleura.
>

The pleura can't stop a bullet.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, and you can't show us.

[Mitch Todd]

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" wrote in message
news:cac643ce-7cf2-4c56...@googlegroups.com...

>> > The bruise on Kennedy's lung is suggestive, then, that a projectile
>> > other than CE 399 struck Kennedy's rib. It is at odds with the single
>> > bullet theory.

I'm getting to this a bit late, but bear with me. You're asserting that a
fragment hit a rib (presumably the 1st) with enough momentum/force/ energy
to slap it into the lung hard enough to cause a bruise. That's a lot of
pepper on the old bean. How does it do this without leaving any sign of
trauma on the rib?

>> I love when conspiracy hobbyists play medical examiner. They come up with
>> all kinds of crazy ideas. Of course none of them can find a single
>> qualified person who agrees with their analysis.

>This is the standard fall-back position for those unwilling to actually
>study the case. If you'd study the case you'd find that almost every
>"theory" I have comes from a textbook, many of them written by the
>forensic pathologists you incorrectly assume support the single-assassin
>scenario.

No offense, but 'almost every "theory" I have comes from a textbook'
isn't the most resoundingly reassuring proclamation. :-D

[Anthony Marsh]

None of the autopsy photos are public domain.
Which photos were made public 50 years ago?
Can you explain how the FBI and WC would say that the bullet exited his
throat and did not hit JFK? No, I didn't think so. But they both said 3
shots, 3 hits. Can YOU get that to work? Maybe if you had another 50
years to work on it.

>
>> Which makes Cummings an outlier. And an outlier he is. You know, of
>> course, that Cummings concluded that the vast majority of his fellow
>> pathologists were completely out to lunch and that the bullet entered low
>> on the back of the head, don't you? That blows the case wide open, no
>> matter how many shots, or the direction of the shots in his theory.
>>
>
>
> I am well aware of that. Moreover, since the original autopsists found the
> same thing when they were examining the actual *body* and since Joe Davis
> (per John Canal) reportedly had some reservations about the "Cowlick"
> entry when he was a member of the HSCA FPP and has since changed his mind,
> that brings the count of 5 pathologists of forensic pathologists who've
> lent credence to the lower entry site.
>

Garbage. Diagram your wound trajectory though the head.
Don't even try to explain where your bullet came from or where it went.

> Indeed for that reason (plus the fact that Larry Sturdivan and Chad
> Zimmerman both came back from their 2004 viewing the autopsy originals at
> the NA convinced lower-entry point believers and posted some convincing
> arguments in its favor) I am personally a BOH exact entry point agnostic
> at the present time.
>

But you're not brave enough to post them here.

> In fact, I think that matter should be revisited by a team of FP's with
> *NO* connection to the prior panels, so as to weed out any bias that may
> have existed among the succeeding panels to find a way to endorse what the
> Clark Panel (headed up by the hugely respected Fisher) had concluded.

Was it Fisher who said that the 6.5 mm object he saw on the X-ray was
one of Oswald's bullets?

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 6:11:47 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:53:25 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:31:18 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:25:18 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is also, of course, the related issue that Kennedy was first hit a
> > > > few seconds earlier, just before going behind the sign...
> > >
> > > While the above has value, after hearing the sworn testimony that I
> > > have quoted here in the past, I'm surprised that not one person seems
> > > interested that the upper back bullet wound NEVER came out through the
> > > throat wound.
> >
> > Nobody is interested because everyone knows how ridiculous that is. Now
> > you know how Bob Harris feels. You are both a cult of one. The only
> > difference is the myth you choose to embrace.
> >
>
>
> Sorry, WRONG again! I have my information from the prosectors, not from
> a report. It's more a matter of most folks being afraid that if they
> contest what I've said, they will have to face the sworn testimony of the
> witnesses. Easier for them to pretend unconcern and try to forget the
> truth.
>

If that is your way of saying no one gives a shit about the things you
believe, for once I will agree with you.

>
>
> > > If that's true, then the proof that the throat wound is of
> > > entry is satisfied more simply than trying to prove it based on
> > > appearance.
> > >
> >
> > Of course it isn't true.
> >
>
>
> Of course it is. Prove otherwise, and don't just quote some report.
> Show how it happened, since the prosectors were unable to. Here's your
> chance to act the pathologist...:)
>

You have it explained to you numerous times before and you can't/won't
accept it. You are determined to remain in your perpetual state of
confusion.

>
>
>
> > > The proof of the contention that the back wound bullet never went past
> > > an inch or so into the back was made by the prosectors themselves,
> >
> > Time to zone out....
> >
> > ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
>
> Good, leave the floor to me. Some folks can't take it. It's hard
> having to pretend that you don't believe the truth. They folds up like an
> old accordion, a few wheezes and out like a light...:)
>

Give a man enough rope...

[bigdog]

So your "cite" is not from any official records or interviews, it is from
a book written by a another conspiracy hobbyist. He claims these observers
described the defect the same way Parkland did and that these descriptions
are in "Warren Commission documents" yet he doesn't cite which documents
those are but that doesn't matter to you. You accept his claim at face
value even though he provides no supporting documentation. Neither he nor
you can cite a record of a single one of Bethesda observers who agreed
with the Parkland description.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/31/2015 10:06 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> "pjsp...@AOL.COM" wrote in message
> news:cac643ce-7cf2-4c56...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>> > The bruise on Kennedy's lung is suggestive, then, that a projectile
>>> > other than CE 399 struck Kennedy's rib. It is at odds with the single
>>> > bullet theory.
>
> I'm getting to this a bit late, but bear with me. You're asserting that
> a fragment hit a rib (presumably the 1st) with enough momentum/force/
> energy to slap it into the lung hard enough to cause a bruise. That's a
> lot of pepper on the old bean. How does it do this without leaving any
> sign of trauma on the rib?
>

I'm not sure who has what theory here, but the bullet did not hit JFK's
RIB. It hit his T-1 VERTEBRA. That is not the rib.

[Anthony Marsh]

Different reasons for different panels.
Read what I've written.
You attack those same panels, but I'm not allowed to?
Hypocrite.