Why do so many CTs doubt the unanimous judgement of the forensic
bigdog
from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
pjspeare
Small fraction? Where do you get this? The majority of the autopsy
photos were re-takes of the same shot. EVERY shot is available to the
research community, through either the Fox set or Groden set. As far
as the x-rays. There were three x-rays taken of the head. Two of these
were published by the HSCA. The third one is reportedly much less
informative, and is the lateral view taken from the other side.
As far as scholarship... two of the three autopsy doctors were not
forensic pathologists. The one who was was insulted and ignored by the
HSCA pathology panel. Dr. Michael Baden, head of the HSCA panel, later
admitted he knew next to nothing of the wound ballistics of WW2-era
bolt-action rifles. His research on this subject consisted of one
phone call to someone he knew. He ended up testifying with an autopsy
photo upside down. The other doctors only spent a few days looking at
and talking about the photographs and x-rays. The earlier reports of
the autopsy doctors, and testimony...were present in the room when
they met, but were NOT required reading. Of these nine doctors,
furthermore, 5 (Spitz, Petty, Baden, Coe, and Loquvam) had an ongoing
financial relationship with Dr. Russell Fisher, whose 1968 report on
the evidence they would be reviewing. So whose conclusions do you
think they ended up confirming?
Although I do agree the head shot came from behind, it has little to
do with the credibility of these men. One can not blindly trust them.
Period.
tomnln
The autopsy was Phony!
The autopsy X-Rays were Phony!
The autopsy photos were Phony!
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd7f601e-c748-419b...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
j leyden
The answer is easy: If they accepted it, the game would be over for
them. Then, what would they do with themselves?
JGL
Anthony Marsh
> The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
> from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
> to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
Who ya talking about? Leave out the conspiracy believers here. I have seen
ALL of the material and much better material than you have. We have the
BEST forensic pathologists on our side. You have JAMA hacks on your side.
You have kooks who believe that the autopsy doctors got it right.
> small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
> the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
> on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
> recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
> the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
> issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
> about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
> autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
>
So you think YOUR experts have done such a good job of it so far? So you
agree 100% with the autopsy report? No need for review?
David Von Pein
>>> "Although I do agree the head shot came from behind, it has little to
do with the credibility of these men. One can not blindly trust them.
Period." <<<
Instead, we should put our blind faith in an amateur sleuth named Patrick
J. Speer, who tells us that John Kennedy's head was struck by one bullet
that entered and exited in pretty much the same place (along the side of
JFK's head).
And Mr. Speer's expertise that would supercede and negate the final
conclusions of the three autopsy doctors and FOUR different U.S.
Government panels is....what again?
I have a feeling that a lot of CTers truly believe that the following
equation is a valid one:
"A JFK conspiracy theorist" = "An expert on all matters connected
with the JFK medical evidence, entitling the CTer to the right to
completely dismiss the official findings of all four Government
committees, plus Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck."
Somebody should spread the word to all conspiracists that the above
equation is a total joke (despite many CTers' apparent firm adherence to
it).
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is one thing that is a 100% certainty and that is that the head shot
came from behind. Whatever else you might say about the autopsy team or
the review by the FPP, that is an undeniable fact and that is what really
matters.
David Von Pein
>>> "You have JAMA hacks on your side." <<<
So, per Marsh, only "hack" doctors were part of ALL FOUR of the Govt.
panels/committees who said that JFK was shot twice and only twice and
only from behind.
SEVENTEEN "hacks", eh Tony? And not a one of them got a damn thing
right, eh?
Oh...my poor bladder (again)!
pamela
> The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
> from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
> to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
> small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
> the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
> on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
> recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
> the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
> issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
> about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
> autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
The autopsy was a "Little Shop of Horrors". The lack of process was
appalling. No conclusions can be drawn from it. Anybody who tries to
make absolute statements just looks silly.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
IN BROAD DAYLIGHT: the JFK Presidential LImousine SS-100-X and the
Crime of the Century
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Jas
one of their tales to Hollywood -land.
Here's an idea: An evil band of renegade doctors, Finck, Boswell, and
Humes, -- the Evil Three -- all faked their way through med school, and
bored with life, decided to perpetrate the hoax of the century after
learning of JFK's death.
Meanwhile, one lowly, untiring, and shining doctor, the only straight-A
med student to rise from obscurity to sit on the HSCA's esteemed forensic
panel -- Cyril Wecht -- emerges to uncover the hoax, overcoming the
constant onslaught of dreaded death rays from the Evil Empire of the
U.S.G. to finally bring the Evil Three to justice.
"j leyden" <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aa31fa27-bf70-4b65...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> I keep saying they should pull an Ollie Stone and make a stab at selling
> one of their tales to Hollywood -land.
>
> Here's an idea: An evil band of renegade doctors, Finck, Boswell, and
> Humes, -- the Evil Three -- all faked their way through med school, and
> bored with life, decided to perpetrate the hoax of the century after
> learning of JFK's death.
>
> Meanwhile, one lowly, untiring, and shining doctor, the only straight-A
> med student to rise from obscurity to sit on the HSCA's esteemed forensic
> panel -- Cyril Wecht -- emerges to uncover the hoax, overcoming the
> constant onslaught of dreaded death rays from the Evil Empire of the
> U.S.G. to finally bring the Evil Three to justice.
>
>
> news:aa31fa27-bf70-4b65...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 11:35 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The answer is easy: If they accepted it, the game would be over for
> them. Then, what would they do with themselves?
>
> JGL
>
>
>
JFK was shot twice from behind and that there is no medical evidence
for shots from other locations. Wecht bases his belief of a near
simultaneous head shot from the front on his interpretation of the Z-
film. In this regard, he is a layman.
pjspeare
me or my findings. I want them to do what I did...READ. Read pathology
textbooks and journals ... Read radiology textbooks and journals. Try
to figure out what really happened... as opposed to picking a side and
sticking with it, even when it is obviously wrong. (That comment is
meant to cut both ways... I have as many CTs upset with me because I
concluded the Parkland witnesses were wrong as I do single-assassin
theorists upset with me because I concluded the single-bullet theory
was a fraud.)
As far as wounds of both entrance and exit...might I suggest you read
chapter 16b at patspeer.com? You'll find that Dr. Clark believed
Kennedy's head wound was one and that Dr. Coe of the HSCA wrote a
number of articles about them. Hmmm... Now why would he do that?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "You have JAMA hacks on your side."<<<
>
> So, per Marsh, only "hack" doctors were part of ALL FOUR of the Govt.
> panels/committees who said that JFK was shot twice and only twice and
> only from behind.
>
False, you don't have all of them on your side.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Name one qualified forensic pathologist who agrees with you.
This is a common trait with conspiracy theorists. If the evidence
doesn't agree with your theory, reject the evidence.
Herbert Blenner
> The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
> from behind JFK.
The FPP disputed the prosectors on the direction of the bullet that
entered JFK's back. In particular Bethesda described the 7 mm longer axis
of the bullet hole as roughly parallel to the vertical column. By contrast
the FPP discussed the autopsy photographs of the abrasion surrounding the
bullet hole in the back that showed the 10 mm longer axis nearly
perpendicular to the same vertical column. Needless to say, the members of
the FPP lacked you know what, and I do not mean testicles, to say what
this misalignment of axes meant.
> The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
> to be genuine.
With access to all the photographs, the FPP surely saw the almost round
hole with shelved inner margins directly beneath the 6 mm by 15 mm
elliptical scalp wound. If so then members of the FPP ignored their second
opportunity to label Humes' documentation of the tangential entries as
fabrications.
> Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
> small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
> the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
> on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
> recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
> the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
> issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
> about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
> autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
The forensic pathologists disclosed sufficient data for those with
advanced high- school or college education in solving physical problems to
recognize irreconcilable conflicts between the principal bodies of
evidence.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Begging the question.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 8, 8:35 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
>> from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
>> reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
>> disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
>> head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
>> from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
>> wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
>> access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
>> to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
>> small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
>> the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
>> on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
>> recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
>> the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
>> issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
>> about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
>> autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
>
> Small fraction? Where do you get this? The majority of the autopsy
> photos were re-takes of the same shot. EVERY shot is available to the
> research community, through either the Fox set or Groden set. As far
That is not true. There are several more autopsy photos that you have
not seen.
> as the x-rays. There were three x-rays taken of the head. Two of these
> were published by the HSCA. The third one is reportedly much less
> informative, and is the lateral view taken from the other side.
>
OK then, show it to me.
bigdog
> On 9/8/2009 11:35 AM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> > from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> > reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> > disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> > head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
> > from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> > wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> > access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
> > to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
>
> Who ya talking about? Leave out the conspiracy believers here. I have seen
> ALL of the material and much better material than you have. We have the
> BEST forensic pathologists on our side. You have JAMA hacks on your side.
> You have kooks who believe that the autopsy doctors got it right.
>
Name one qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the autopsy material
and disputes the finding of two shots hitting JFK from the rear and that
there is no medical evidence of shots from any other direction.
> So you think YOUR experts have done such a good job of it so far? So you
> agree 100% with the autopsy report? No need for review?
I haven't seen most of the autopsy materials and I'm not qualified to
agree or disagree with the autopsy report. A panel of the best forensic
pathologists in the country agreed with the basic finding that two shots
only struck JFK and both came from behind him. They disagreed with the
exact placement of the entrance wound in the back of the head, but the
most important question was the direction of the shots and on that there
was no disagreement.
Jas
Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
that they have "proof?"
Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd7f601e-c748-419b...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> The answer is as old as mankind-- politics.
>
> Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
> that they have "proof?"
>
> Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
>
> Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
>
> And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
>
> Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
> exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
>
Why do government stooges always try to discredit any conspiracy
research by linking it to kooky theories? Because they do not have any
arguments of their own and they don't have any facts on their side. So
they are left with straw man arguments, ad hominems and cheap rhetoric.
pamela
> The answer is as old as mankind-- politics.
>
> Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
> that they have "proof?"
>
> Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
>
> Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
>
> And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
>
> Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
> exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
>
>
> news:bd7f601e-c748-419b...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> > from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> > reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> > disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> > head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
> > from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> > wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> > access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
> > to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
> > small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
> > the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
> > on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
> > recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
> > the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
> > issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
> > about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
> > autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
The JFK assassination is GIGO. Nothing was done to protect the crime
scenes. Evidence was moved 1600 miles before examination. Anybody who
tries to tie everything into a neat package just looks silly. The feeble
attempts to make absolute statements about how clear-cut things are are
even more revealing of how deep the abyss really is. The LNTs simply deny
this and tend to blindly forge ahead. LOL.
bigdog
> On 9/9/2009 10:47 PM, Jas wrote:
>
> > The answer is as old as mankind-- politics.
>
> > Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
> > that they have "proof?"
>
> > Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
>
> > Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
>
> > And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
>
> > Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
> > exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
>
> Why do government stooges always try to discredit any conspiracy
> research by linking it to kooky theories? Because they do not have any
> arguments of their own and they don't have any facts on their side. So
> they are left with straw man arguments, ad hominems and cheap rhetoric.
>
I can't speak for government stooges whoever they may be. I can only speak
for myself. I discredit any and all conspiracy theories which are not
based on credible evidence. That includes ALL JFK assassination conspiracy
theories including your own. The issue of the autopsy evidence as it
relates to the direction of the shots which hit JFK is a perfect example.
There is no medical evidence whatsoever of a gunshot wound from any
direction other than behind JFK. You can't name a single qualified
forensic pathologist who has seen the autopsy material who is on record as
saying otherwise. You invent medical evidence that simply does not exist.
You base your theories on this imaginative evidence and then you resent
being lumped with other conspiracy theories which you regard as kooky. I
see no fundamental difference between your approach to the JFK
assassination and that of conspiracy theorists regarding other historical
events. As Jas correctly pointed out, your theory, like all the others, is
driven by a very definite political agenda.
Sandy McCroskey
>
> > The answer is as old as mankind-- politics.
>
> > Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
> > that they have "proof?"
>
> > Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
>
> > Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
>
> > And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
>
> > Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
> > exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
>
> Why do government stooges always try to discredit any conspiracy
> research by linking it to kooky theories? Because they do not have any
> arguments of their own and they don't have any facts on their side. So
> they are left with straw man arguments, ad hominems and cheap rhetoric.
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:bd7f601e-c748-419b...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >> The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> >> from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> >> reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> >> disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> >> head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had
> >> come
> >> from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> >> wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> >> access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were
> >> found
> >> to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
> >> small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
> >> the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
> >> on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even
> >> one
> >> recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
> >> the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
> >> issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better
> >> judgement
> >> about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
> >> autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
It's only because *all* the facts are on the side of "Oswald did it
(alone)" that the divergent, mutually (and self-)contradictory theories
that persist like weeds seem as wacky as the moon-landing denials.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 10, 9:21 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2009 10:47 PM, Jas wrote:
>>
>>> The answer is as old as mankind-- politics.
>>
>>> Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
>>> that they have "proof?"
>>
>>> Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
>>
>>> Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
>>
>>> And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
>>
>>> Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
>>> exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
>>
>> Why do government stooges always try to discredit any conspiracy
>> research by linking it to kooky theories? Because they do not have any
>> arguments of their own and they don't have any facts on their side. So
>> they are left with straw man arguments, ad hominems and cheap rhetoric.
>>
>
> I can't speak for government stooges whoever they may be. I can only speak
> for myself. I discredit any and all conspiracy theories which are not
> based on credible evidence. That includes ALL JFK assassination conspiracy
No, you discredit ALL conspiracy theories because you start with the
prejudice that there can not be any credible evidence of conspiracy.
You learned nothing from Watergate and all the other conspiracies.
> theories including your own. The issue of the autopsy evidence as it
> relates to the direction of the shots which hit JFK is a perfect example.
> There is no medical evidence whatsoever of a gunshot wound from any
> direction other than behind JFK. You can't name a single qualified
Again because you believe government lies rather than look at the
evidence for yourself.
> forensic pathologist who has seen the autopsy material who is on record as
> saying otherwise. You invent medical evidence that simply does not exist.
I don't need no damn stinkin liars. You are like the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages saying that the Earth is flat and there are no experts
who have evidence to contradict that. And if anyone dares to present
such evidence they are tortured to death. That's an easy way to win an
argument. Just ignore the evidence and kill any dissenters.
> You base your theories on this imaginative evidence and then you resent
> being lumped with other conspiracy theories which you regard as kooky. I
I present physical evidence, not imaginary evidence.
I don't resent being called a kook. I welcome it. I expect it from the
cover-up artists.
I point out that the arguments of the WC defenders are so weak that they
need to resort to lumping all conspiracies together and calling them all
kooky.
You can't argue the facts because you don't have any.
> see no fundamental difference between your approach to the JFK
> assassination and that of conspiracy theorists regarding other historical
> events. As Jas correctly pointed out, your theory, like all the others, is
> driven by a very definite political agenda.
>
Well, I don't know how to break this to you, but there have been plenty
of conspiracies in the past, there continue to be and will always be.
The right-wing has plenty of its own kooky conspiracy theories like
floridation, or The New World Order, of the UN, or a communist under
each bed. But I don't cite those to Poison the Well for all right-wingers.
bigdog
> On 9/10/2009 3:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 9:21 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/9/2009 10:47 PM, Jas wrote:
>
> >>> The answer is as old as mankind-- politics.
>
> >>> Why do 9-11 "truthers" say the attack was planned by the government and
> >>> that they have "proof?"
>
> >>> Why do moon-landing deniers exist?
>
> >>> Why are there idiots who think Pearl Harbor was a government plot?
>
> >>> And then there's the JFK assassination, the grand daddy of them all.
>
> >>> Common to all the major conspiracy theories, besides politics, is there
> >>> exists no tangible, credible evidence to prove what they're alleging.
>
> >> Why do government stooges always try to discredit any conspiracy
> >> research by linking it to kooky theories? Because they do not have any
> >> arguments of their own and they don't have any facts on their side. So
> >> they are left with straw man arguments, ad hominems and cheap rhetoric.
>
> > I can't speak for government stooges whoever they may be. I can only speak
> > for myself. I discredit any and all conspiracy theories which are not
> > based on credible evidence. That includes ALL JFK assassination conspiracy
>
> No, you discredit ALL conspiracy theories because you start with the
> prejudice that there can not be any credible evidence of conspiracy.
> You learned nothing from Watergate and all the other conspiracies.
>
credible evidence of conspiracy. I say there IS not any credible
evidence of conspiracy. You haven't produced any. Your cohorts have
not produced any. You have had almost 46 years to find some and you
have come up empty. However I will keep the door open. If you can
produce any credible evidence, even at this late date, I would be very
interested in seeing it. So far, you have struck out.
> > theories including your own. The issue of the autopsy evidence as it
> > relates to the direction of the shots which hit JFK is a perfect example.
> > There is no medical evidence whatsoever of a gunshot wound from any
> > direction other than behind JFK. You can't name a single qualified
>
> Again because you believe government lies rather than look at the
> evidence for yourself.
>
I really wish we had a government that lied to us all the time. It
would make it very easy for us ordinary citizens. We would not that
what they are telling us is false and therefore the opposite must be
true. Unfortunately, the bastards don't always lie to us. Sometimes
they do tell us the truth, maybe just to keep us guessing. We as
citizens have to use our brains to figure out when they are lying and
when they are telling us the truth. In September of 1964, they told us
the truth about the assassination of JFK.
> > forensic pathologist who has seen the autopsy material who is on record as
> > saying otherwise. You invent medical evidence that simply does not exist.
>
> I don't need no damn stinkin liars. You are like the Catholic Church in
> the Middle Ages saying that the Earth is flat and there are no experts
> who have evidence to contradict that. And if anyone dares to present
> such evidence they are tortured to death. That's an easy way to win an
> argument. Just ignore the evidence and kill any dissenters.
>
Gee, I didn't know any CTs had been tortured and killed. Could you
give us the names of one or two. I would find that very troubling. I
was raised as a Roman Catholic but my current religous status is that
of an agnostic. I know all about the Catholic Church's checkered past
but that is hardly relevant to the JFK assassination. You claim we are
ignoring the evidence but the truth of the matter is that the LNs are
the ones who accept the evidence and the CTs are the ones that reject
it. You do not present any evidence of conspiracy. Your whole case is
based on criticisms of the WC's findings. You haven't presented any
evidence to support your claims of a frontal shot. You haven't
presented any evidence of a CIA directed hit. These are all conjecture
by you and are driven by your political agenda. You want to believe
JFK was taken out by those who you view as the bad guys so you invent
evidence to make a case against them. None of your evidence is
tangible. None of it is credible. It is all make believe.
> > You base your theories on this imaginative evidence and then you resent
> > being lumped with other conspiracy theories which you regard as kooky. I
>
> I present physical evidence, not imaginary evidence.
> I don't resent being called a kook. I welcome it. I expect it from the
> cover-up artists.
You have presented nothing but your own misinterpretation of the
evidence. I'm sorry if you welcome being called a kook but this
forum's guidelines do not allow me to make such an accusation so I
must refrain from doing so. If it is any comfort to you, the
moderators cannot prevent me from thinking such a thing.
> I point out that the arguments of the WC defenders are so weak that they
> need to resort to lumping all conspiracies together and calling them all
> kooky.
> You can't argue the facts because you don't have any.
>
This is the fundamental fact. Lee Harvey Oswald alone fired the shots
that killed JFK and J. D. Tippit. There is no credible evidence he was
acting in concert with any other persons.
> > see no fundamental difference between your approach to the JFK
> > assassination and that of conspiracy theorists regarding other historical
> > events. As Jas correctly pointed out, your theory, like all the others, is
> > driven by a very definite political agenda.
>
> Well, I don't know how to break this to you, but there have been plenty
> of conspiracies in the past, there continue to be and will always be.
> The right-wing has plenty of its own kooky conspiracy theories like
> floridation, or The New World Order, of the UN, or a communist under
> each bed. But I don't cite those to Poison the Well for all right-wingers.
Well I use floride toothpaste, I do not fret a New World Order, and
the last time I looked there wasn't communist under my bed, so maybe I
do not qualify as a right winger. I do regard the UN as a worthless
entity so maybe there is hope for me.
Jas
What!? Give it up, Marsh...
You, my man, are the king of straw man arguments and cheap rhetoric -- all
based on conjecture to boot.
At least I use facts and common sense.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4aa8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Jas
"pamela" <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aab53401-2391-4866...@e12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
None of which is evidence of a conspiracy.
I know it's difficult for you, but 'yall need to start separating fact
from fiction.
davidemerling
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
>
> The autopsy was Phony!
> The autopsy X-Rays were Phony!
> The autopsy photos were Phony!
The reason you HAVE to say that they are phony is because you are
admitting that they do, in fact, show what they are purported as showing -
that Kennedy was shot from BEHIND and that this mystical "massive rear
head wound" does not exist.
And yet, many of your conspiracy cohorts do NOT claim that they are phony
and insist that these x-rays and photographs indicate that Kennedy was
shot from the right/front (i.e. grassy knoll).
Don't you ever pause and contemplate just how much evidence in this case
you claim is "phony"?
The phoniest thing about the Kennedy assassination is the strained efforts
by a bunch of sensationalists/hobbyists/paranoids who want to perpetuate
the debate because they have invested some much time/effort/ money in
their delusion.
Some people just cannot say the words, "I was wrong."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
WHEN did you see those Official Records???
Doug Horne was Hired/Paid to view them.
Here's Doug Horne's Official Report>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
btw;
Aren't you one who DODGED These?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc85845-8413-4213...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
To sum up, people like Rossley believe ALL the evidence is phoney because
ALL the evidence indicates Oswald did it. If you want to argue Oswald was
innocent, you can't explain the evidence, you have to explain it away.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 8, 8:08 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
>>
>> The autopsy was Phony!
>> The autopsy X-Rays were Phony!
>> The autopsy photos were Phony!
>
> The reason you HAVE to say that they are phony is because you are
> admitting that they do, in fact, show what they are purported as showing -
> that Kennedy was shot from BEHIND and that this mystical "massive rear
> head wound" does not exist.
>
The reason why I remind people that they are genuine is because they
prove that Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind.
> And yet, many of your conspiracy cohorts do NOT claim that they are phony
> and insist that these x-rays and photographs indicate that Kennedy was
> shot from the right/front (i.e. grassy knoll).
>
C'est moi.
> Don't you ever pause and contemplate just how much evidence in this case
> you claim is "phony"?
>
Very little is phony but when it is it is often interesting.
> The phoniest thing about the Kennedy assassination is the strained efforts
> by a bunch of sensationalists/hobbyists/paranoids who want to perpetuate
> the debate because they have invested some much time/effort/ money in
> their delusion.
>
And you are here debating it because you are an expert in something?
davidemerling
> Tell us Oh, David;
>
> WHEN did you see those Official Records???
>
> Doug Horne was Hired/Paid to view them.
>
> Here's Doug Horne's Official Report>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
Now THERE'S a big name in the Kennedy assassination investigation ... Doug
Horne, who, as he says, "I served on the staff of the Assassination
Records Review Board." So what's his conclusion, Tom? Is he in step with
his colleagues who ALSO were involved with the ARRB? Or, have you just
cherry-picked another dissident?
>
> btw;
> Aren't you one who DODGED These?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
That is just a silly laundry list of oddities that really do not add up to
anything. That is no investigative achievement, Tom.
You are incapable of seeing how the bulk of the more compelling evidence
fits into a clear pattern. Instead, like an Attention-Deficit- Disorder
afflicted child, you are distracted by "shiny objects" and hyper-focus on
them as if THEY are the "compelling" evidence of something you have NEVER
been able to articulate. You're very good at jumping up and down and
screaming "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" at the top of your lungs, but you have
never been able to put it all together and tell a cogent story about what
it all is telling us.
You interpret every oddity and inconsistency in this case as something
sinister. You always think it shows the dark underbelly of hidden forces
at work. It never occurs to you that people are human - they say stupid
things, they sometimes draw incorrect conclusions, they make honest
mistakes, sometimes they even try to say more (to seem important) than
they are qualified to have an opinion on. Some people just want their
15-minutes of fame. Who knows? And some of the things you point out are
absolutely true - but they, in no way, negate the overall conclusion.
But when you take a step back, look through the chaff instead of focusing
on it, the conclusion couldn't possibly be clearer.
I maintain the you are nothing more than a JFK assassination collector.
You're no researcher - you're more of a hobbyist. You even try to turn
your "debates" into JFK assassination trivia contests. You enjoy showing
people your bizarre "stamp collection" but you really do not know anything
about how the "postal service" operates. But you've got plenty of
"stamps!" - there's no denying that.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
Close, but even worse. They pick and choose which evidence to accept
based on the criterion of whether is supports or destroys their pet
theories.
bigdog
> davidemerling wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 8:08 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
>
> >> The autopsy was Phony!
> >> The autopsy X-Rays were Phony!
> >> The autopsy photos were Phony!
>
> > The reason you HAVE to say that they are phony is because you are
> > admitting that they do, in fact, show what they are purported as showing -
> > that Kennedy was shot from BEHIND and that this mystical "massive rear
> > head wound" does not exist.
>
> The reason why I remind people that they are genuine is because they
> prove that Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind.
>
> > And yet, many of your conspiracy cohorts do NOT claim that they are phony
> > and insist that these x-rays and photographs indicate that Kennedy was
> > shot from the right/front (i.e. grassy knoll).
>
> C'est moi.
>
> > Don't you ever pause and contemplate just how much evidence in this case
> > you claim is "phony"?
>
> Very little is phony but when it is it is often interesting.
>
> > The phoniest thing about the Kennedy assassination is the strained efforts
> > by a bunch of sensationalists/hobbyists/paranoids who want to perpetuate
> > the debate because they have invested some much time/effort/ money in
> > their delusion.
>
> And you are here debating it because you are an expert in something?
>
>
>
> > Some people just cannot say the words, "I was wrong."
>
I'll bet the farm you won't hear it from Tony.
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 12, 9:50 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Tell us Oh, David;
>>
>> WHEN did you see those Official Records???
>>
>> Doug Horne was Hired/Paid to view them.
>>
>> Here's Doug Horne's Official Report>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
>
> Now THERE'S a big name in the Kennedy assassination investigation ... Doug
> Horne, who, as he says, "I served on the staff of the Assassination
> Records Review Board." So what's his conclusion, Tom? Is he in step with
> his colleagues who ALSO were involved with the ARRB? Or, have you just
> cherry-picked another dissident?
>
Your attitude is appalling. When someone mentions an expert you
immediately attack him as being a dissenter, as if that automatically
disqualifies him. You are what is wrong with America, believing government
lies and attacking dissenters. You would have been right at home in the
Inquisition.
davidemerling
> > And yet, many of your conspiracy cohorts do NOT claim that they are phony
> > and insist that these x-rays and photographs indicate that Kennedy was
> > shot from the right/front (i.e. grassy knoll).
>
> C'est moi.
Oh, then let's have THAT debate!
Rossley vs Marsh on the genuineness of the autopsy materials and what they
indicate.
With all the varied views amongst CTers, you'd think they would be
debating one another more than they do. But that would be a violation of
an unwritten, fraternal protocol. Rossley, I would imagine, would embrace
just about anything and everything remotely conspiratorial - even items of
mutual exclusivity.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> Your attitude is appalling. When someone mentions an expert you
> immediately attack him as being a dissenter, as if that automatically
> disqualifies him. You are what is wrong with America, believing government
> lies and attacking dissenters. You would have been right at home in the
> Inquisition.
I was simply pointing out that Mr. Horne's opinion in no way
represents a consensus of the ARRB.
I'm not saying all lone dissenters are always incorrect.
Your melodramatic hyperbole is entertaining, however.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
jbarge
> The finding of the autopsy team at Bethesda was that JFK was shot twice
> from behind, once in the upper back and once in the head. Their work was
> reviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and while there was
> disagreement as to the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the
> head, the panel was unanimous in their finding that the head shot had come
> from behind JFK. The beveling of the entrance and exit holes in the skull
> wall left no doubt about the direction of the head shot. The FPP had
> access to all the photographs and x-rays from the autopsy. They were found
> to be genuine. Yet a sizeable percentage of the CTs who have seen only a
> small subset of these materials and who have no training or expertise in
> the area of forensic pathology feel they are qualified to pass judgement
> on these findings. If would be quite different if they could find even one
> recognized expert in this area who disputes that the head shot came from
> the rear, but of course they can't. There is simply no doubt about this
> issue. Why do these amateur sleuths think they can make a better judgement
> about the nature of the wound having only seen a small fraction of the
> autopsy materials that were leaked to the public.
The medical evidence is a fascinating and complex part of the case.
For me the questions start with 4 inch "mistake" made by the autopsy
doctors.
You see, the autopsy doctors said the entry was by the EOP, that
little bone in the back of the head near the neck.
The large (13 centimeters) exit wound was on the top right of the
head, the back margin reaching the top of the occipital bone.
Yet mysteriously beginning with the Clark Panel in 1967 and finally
confirmed by the HSCA panel in 1979, the entry wound is actually where
part of the "original" exit wound used to be located?
At least according to some scant photos and the odd X-ray or two.
Have you read the Humes, Boswell et. al. HSCA testimony?
Wow, do they have a hard time with the "new" entry/exit wound!
So do I - you have a ruler, right?
You have the body, right?
With a hole in it, right?
What is this - an Easter Egg Hunt?
No, a contradiction & when I encounter contradiction I suspect
deception.
The exit wound gets described as being "a very obvious horrible gaping
would to the back of the head....it was the back of the head that
blown off." by the actual autopsy radiologist in a newspaper
interview, March 9, 1978 yet soon after testifies to the HSCA & meekly
agrees with the "new" exit wound location.
I mean - he took the original x-rays & he can't remember the right
location of an exit wound of the biggest case of his career?
It's weird but it gets weirder when we start reviewing what the
Parkland Doctors and the Secret Service agents say about the exit
wound.
Here's a fun game - list all the Warren Report testimony of the
Parkland Doctors, Secret Service agents et. al. who place the exit
wound where the HSCA finds it.
Hey - NONE.
I understand human error and mistakes with eyewitness testimony - but
it is 100% universal with this?
I mean, I would''ve though one person would have accurately seen it!
Another contradiction.
For example, the 6.5 "object" in the head x-ray - gosh it gives all
appearances of being a bullet fragment.
The Clark Panel said it was a "large, metallic fragment".
But Humes, Boswell et. al. testify they carefully examined all x-rays
- no fragments found.
Quite frankly a contradiction like this is suspicious.
Why would Autopsy Doctors miss a large 6.5 fragment that was easily
discernable to the Clark Panel?
Contradiction #3.
Who knows why the weight of JFK's brain is listed at 1500 grams - it
basically implies that despite being splattered none of is missing.
From Wiki: "The average weight of an adult human brain is about
1300-1400 grams."
Sure, sure - I can hear it now.
"Well, maybe JFK had an abnormally large brain and when it lost tissue
it weighed 1500 grams."
Contradiction #4.
Of course they didn't section the brain to definitively chart or
diagram the paths of the bullet or bullets.
Thus the evidence that the wounds came from behind are these 2 weird
floating wounds that move around JFK's skull like jellyfish in the
sea.
Nor did they section the bullet wound located at the base of the neck,
or between the shoulder blades, or wherever the hey it is.
Then there's the x-ray that appears to show a big chunk missing with
the floor of the right eye socket.
Which would conflict the condition of JFK's face.
I was curious & posted a question about it - I got a reply from you,
actually, concerning bone density, etc. and that it meant nothing (I
really should try to find that again).
Okay, I'm not an expert, I'll move on.
But months later I come across this HSCA exchange with then panel of
doctors interviewing Humes:
Dr. Angel: It's really hard to be sure, square this with the X-ray
which shows so much bone lost in the frontal area.
Dr. Petty: Well, I think there may be more bone apparently lost than
is actually lost in the X-ray.
7 HSCA 249
I guess I find it weird that the "experts" found it hard to "square"
as well - I would've thought they would know about x-rays & bone
density, etc. from the start.
I start wondering about these "experts".
It was "experts" who found a 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll on the
audio-tape recording.
Then more experts started weighing in, and other experts started
replying to the experts who were debunking the original experts, and
on and on.
So experts can disagree, eh?
Meanwhile we've got a stolen photograph, destroyed notes written by
LHO, non-existant photos of LHO in Mexico City, burned autopsy report
notes (and of course the actual original autopsy report which appeared
to also go up in flames - gee, I wonder if a re-written autopsy report
with the original burned would get thrown out of court), all done by
various Law Enforcement and Investigatory Officials.
Yet we're supposed to believe those mis-deeds done by the very people
in charge of solving the case go no further.
That all of the mis-deeds are known to us.
That we're just supposed to accept the experts verification of the
photos and x-rays (but not the experts of the Grassy Knoll audiotape)
and go to bed.
I'm sorry - but the medical evidence is rife with contradictions,
mistakes, and destroyed evidence.
As an honest and patriotic American, I feel it is my duty to "Trust
but verify."
The jury remains out.
David Von Pein
>>> "Here's a fun game - list all the Warren Report testimony of the
Parkland Doctors, Secret Service agents et. al. who place the exit wound
where the HSCA finds it. Hey - NONE." <<<
Doesn't really matter.
Why?
Because there's much BETTER evidence to rely on when trying to figure out
exactly where the large exit wound was located on John F. Kennedy's head.
And that "much better evidence" is (and always has been) this evidence
(especially the X-ray):
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
Was the HSCA lying its collective ass off when it said the above words
in Volume #7?
tomnln
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What position did you occupy for which the ARRB hired/paid You????
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
about the placement of the entrance wound, the fact is the shot came
from behind JFK. That is an absolute certainty. The beveling of the
hole in the wall of the skull proves beyond all doubt that the bullet
entered JFK's head from behind. That beveling of the skull wall
happens 100% of the time. There is no getting around it. Whether or
not the autopsy team misplaced the entrance wound does not trump the
fact the headshot came from behind JFK. The only people who believe
otherwise are rank amateurs who think they can do a better job of
analyzing the evidence than the pros even though they have seen only a
fraction of the medical evidence.
> The exit wound gets described as being "a very obvious horrible gaping
> would to the back of the head....it was the back of the head that
> blown off." by the actual autopsy radiologist in a newspaper
> interview, March 9, 1978 yet soon after testifies to the HSCA & meekly
> agrees with the "new" exit wound location.
The radiologist is not a pathologist. It is total nonsense to say the
back of JFK's head was blown off when the Z-film shows that did not
happen. The blow out is on the upper right side of skull, exactly
where the autopsy team described it. When the bullet struck, it
shattered JFK's skull all along the right side of his head, including
a fractured piece from the occipital region. That does not constitute
a blow out. That shattered piece of occipital bone remained in place
beneath JFK's scalp.
> I mean - he took the original x-rays & he can't remember the right
> location of an exit wound of the biggest case of his career?
> It's weird but it gets weirder when we start reviewing what the
> Parkland Doctors and the Secret Service agents say about the exit
> wound.
And just how is he qualified to say whether it was and entrance or an
exit in the back of JFK's skull? He is a RADIOLOGIST. All he knows is
there was a gaping hole in the right side of JFK's head. If he thinks
that gaping hole was only in the back, he doesn't even have a clue.
> Here's a fun game - list all the Warren Report testimony of the
> Parkland Doctors, Secret Service agents et. al. who place the exit
> wound where the HSCA finds it.
> Hey - NONE.
JFK was face up on the guerney at Parkland and they could not have
seen the back of the head nor did they spend much time examining it.
All they really knew was that JFK was JFK was bleeding profusely from
the head and his vital signs were weak. All their efforts during the
20 minutes they treated JFK were aimed at stabilizing his respiration,
something I'm sure they knew was a futile gesture. As is typical with
CTs, you resort to believing the worst available evidence and discard
the most credible forms of evidence. It is no wonder you all manage to
fool yourselves so badly.
> I understand human error and mistakes with eyewitness testimony - but
> it is 100% universal with this?
> I mean, I would''ve though one person would have accurately seen it!
> Another contradiction.
Why would you think that. JFK's head was a bloody mess and apparently
Jackie had made some effort to close the flap over the blow out so
that the true nature of the head wound would not be apparent. There
was one witness who did accurately see the head wound before there was
any manipulation of it. That was Zapruder's camera. It shows exactly
where the blow out was and it sure as hell wasn't in the back of the
head. It was only the upper right side.
>
> For example, the 6.5 "object" in the head x-ray - gosh it gives all
> appearances of being a bullet fragment.
> The Clark Panel said it was a "large, metallic fragment".
> But Humes, Boswell et. al. testify they carefully examined all x-rays
> - no fragments found.
> Quite frankly a contradiction like this is suspicious.
> Why would Autopsy Doctors miss a large 6.5 fragment that was easily
> discernable to the Clark Panel?
> Contradiction #3.
>
So tell us what that means if there was such a fragment.
> Who knows why the weight of JFK's brain is listed at 1500 grams - it
> basically implies that despite being splattered none of is missing.
> From Wiki: "The average weight of an adult human brain is about
> 1300-1400 grams."
So tell us what that means.
> Sure, sure - I can hear it now.
> "Well, maybe JFK had an abnormally large brain and when it lost tissue
> it weighed 1500 grams."
> Contradiction #4.
>
> Of course they didn't section the brain to definitively chart or
> diagram the paths of the bullet or bullets.
> Thus the evidence that the wounds came from behind are these 2 weird
> floating wounds that move around JFK's skull like jellyfish in the
> sea.
No the evidence that the shot came from behind is the beveling of the
skull wall where the bullet holes were. They were beveled inward in
the back of the head and outward on the right side. That proves beyond
any doubt that the bullet passed from back to front and every forensic
pathologist knows that which is why none of you can't point to a
single qualified forensic pathologist who would say otherwise. Only
rank amateurs such as yourself can look at the medical evidence and
come to any other conclusion which gets us back to the central
question of this thread. Why do you reject the unanimous opinion of
the people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes
to forensic medicine?
> Nor did they section the bullet wound located at the base of the neck,
> or between the shoulder blades, or wherever the hey it is.
>
Again, the unanimous verdict of the qualified people who have seen the
evidence is that the back wound is an entrance and that the bullet
transited and exited from the throat. So why do you think you are more
qualified than they are to render such a judgement.
> Then there's the x-ray that appears to show a big chunk missing with
> the floor of the right eye socket.
No where is the amateurishness of the CTs more apparent than the
ridiculous claim that there is a chunk missing from JFK's eye socket.
Don't you think if there was such a thing, we would see it in the Z-
film, the autopsy photos, or that even the Parkland staff would have
witnessed such defect, given that they had JFK face up on the guerney.
> Which would conflict the condition of JFK's face.
> I was curious & posted a question about it - I got a reply from you,
> actually, concerning bone density, etc. and that it meant nothing (I
> really should try to find that again).
> Okay, I'm not an expert, I'll move on.
No kidding.
> But months later I come across this HSCA exchange with then panel of
> doctors interviewing Humes:
> Dr. Angel: It's really hard to be sure, square this with the X-ray
> which shows so much bone lost in the frontal area.
> Dr. Petty: Well, I think there may be more bone apparently lost than
> is actually lost in the X-ray.
> 7 HSCA 249
> I guess I find it weird that the "experts" found it hard to "square"
> as well - I would've thought they would know about x-rays & bone
> density, etc. from the start.
> I start wondering about these "experts".
>
> It was "experts" who found a 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll on the
> audio-tape recording.
It would be charitable to call those bozos experts.
> Then more experts started weighing in, and other experts started
> replying to the experts who were debunking the original experts, and
> on and on.
> So experts can disagree, eh?
>
> Meanwhile we've got a stolen photograph, destroyed notes written by
> LHO, non-existant photos of LHO in Mexico City, burned autopsy report
> notes (and of course the actual original autopsy report which appeared
> to also go up in flames - gee, I wonder if a re-written autopsy report
> with the original burned would get thrown out of court), all done by
> various Law Enforcement and Investigatory Officials.
>
Which all adds up to what? Put it together into a scenario that makes
sense. All you have done is point to some loose threads and when you
put it all together, you have a pile of loose threads.
> Yet we're supposed to believe those mis-deeds done by the very people
> in charge of solving the case go no further.
> That all of the mis-deeds are known to us.
> That we're just supposed to accept the experts verification of the
> photos and x-rays (but not the experts of the Grassy Knoll audiotape)
> and go to bed.
>
There is only one way the evidence can be pieced together and present
a logical explaination of what happened and that is what the WC
presented to us 45 years ago. For all the bluster from the CTs, not
one of them has been able to take all that same information the WC had
and which they published in the 26 volumes, plus all the additional
information that has been gathered in the years since, and present a
plausible alterative to the WCR. It can't be done. The pieces of the
puzzle only fit together one way, which is what the WC presented to
us. You can accept it or spend the rest of your life spinning your
wheels and fooling nobody but yourself. It's your choice.
> I'm sorry - but the medical evidence is rife with contradictions,
> mistakes, and destroyed evidence.
> As an honest and patriotic American, I feel it is my duty to "Trust
> but verify."
> The jury remains out.
That jury must be out to lunch.
tomnln
I don't recall seeing ANY of these official bodies hiring/Paying YOU ! ! !
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2c8f492-0b9e-4635...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one would YOU care to debate me in David?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:01e75fad-4d03-45bc...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
davidemerling
> "davidemerling" <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:862e82cf-5d4f-4343...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 13, 1:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Your attitude is appalling. When someone mentions an expert you
> > immediately attack him as being a dissenter, as if that automatically
> > disqualifies him. You are what is wrong with America, believing government
> > lies and attacking dissenters. You would have been right at home in the
> > Inquisition.
>
> I was simply pointing out that Mr. Horne's opinion in no way
> represents a consensus of the ARRB.
>
> I'm not saying all lone dissenters are always incorrect.
>
> Your melodramatic hyperbole is entertaining, however.
>
> DavidEmerling
> Memphis, TN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Huh? Is that intended to be a serious question?
Sometimes you are just downright silly, Tom. Always entertaining,
though.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 14, 10:57=A0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "davidemerling" <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> I was simply pointing out that Mr. Horne's opinion in no way
>> represents a consensus of the ARRB.
>>
>> I'm not saying all lone dissenters are always incorrect.
>>
>> Your melodramatic hyperbole is entertaining, however.
>>
>> DavidEmerling
>> Memphis, TN
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What position did you occupy for which the ARRB hired/paid You????
>
>Huh? Is that intended to be a serious question?
>
>Sometimes you are just downright silly, Tom. Always entertaining,
>though.
>
If he's claiming that paid staffers are always right, he needs to
think about Specter, Belin, Shawsom, Griffin, Coleman and all the
other paid staffers of the Warren Commission.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
If you are not a board certified forensic pathologist then you have no
business making statements like that. You simply don't know what you are
talking about and you refuse to read the literature.
> not the autopsy team misplaced the entrance wound does not trump the
> fact the headshot came from behind JFK. The only people who believe
> otherwise are rank amateurs who think they can do a better job of
> analyzing the evidence than the pros even though they have seen only a
> fraction of the medical evidence.
>
I've seen a lot more of the medical evidence than you have. What does
that make you?
Sure, but from Zapruder's perspective it could not show the LEFT side of
the head.
>> For example, the 6.5 "object" in the head x-ray - gosh it gives all
>> appearances of being a bullet fragment.
>> The Clark Panel said it was a "large, metallic fragment".
>> But Humes, Boswell et. al. testify they carefully examined all x-rays
>> - no fragments found.
>> Quite frankly a contradiction like this is suspicious.
>> Why would Autopsy Doctors miss a large 6.5 fragment that was easily
>> discernable to the Clark Panel?
>> Contradiction #3.
>>
> So tell us what that means if there was such a fragment.
>
>> Who knows why the weight of JFK's brain is listed at 1500 grams - it
>> basically implies that despite being splattered none of is missing.
>> From Wiki: "The average weight of an adult human brain is about
>> 1300-1400 grams."
>
> So tell us what that means.
>
It means the autopsy doctors lied.
>> Sure, sure - I can hear it now.
>> "Well, maybe JFK had an abnormally large brain and when it lost tissue
>> it weighed 1500 grams."
>> Contradiction #4.
>>
>> Of course they didn't section the brain to definitively chart or
>> diagram the paths of the bullet or bullets.
>> Thus the evidence that the wounds came from behind are these 2 weird
>> floating wounds that move around JFK's skull like jellyfish in the
>> sea.
>
> No the evidence that the shot came from behind is the beveling of the
> skull wall where the bullet holes were. They were beveled inward in
> the back of the head and outward on the right side. That proves beyond
You can't prove that without relying on lying idiots.
> any doubt that the bullet passed from back to front and every forensic
> pathologist knows that which is why none of you can't point to a
> single qualified forensic pathologist who would say otherwise. Only
> rank amateurs such as yourself can look at the medical evidence and
> come to any other conclusion which gets us back to the central
> question of this thread. Why do you reject the unanimous opinion of
> the people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes
> to forensic medicine?
>
>> Nor did they section the bullet wound located at the base of the neck,
>> or between the shoulder blades, or wherever the hey it is.
>>
> Again, the unanimous verdict of the qualified people who have seen the
> evidence is that the back wound is an entrance and that the bullet
> transited and exited from the throat. So why do you think you are more
> qualified than they are to render such a judgement.
>
Maybe because we are not paid to lie.
These are the top acoustical scientists in the world. And they used the
same technique to prove the shots at the Kent State Massacre, to which
the defense stipulated.
Shooting the messenger does not work in this case.
>> Then more experts started weighing in, and other experts started
>> replying to the experts who were debunking the original experts, and
>> on and on.
>> So experts can disagree, eh?
>>
>> Meanwhile we've got a stolen photograph, destroyed notes written by
>> LHO, non-existant photos of LHO in Mexico City, burned autopsy report
>> notes (and of course the actual original autopsy report which appeared
>> to also go up in flames - gee, I wonder if a re-written autopsy report
>> with the original burned would get thrown out of court), all done by
>> various Law Enforcement and Investigatory Officials.
>>
> Which all adds up to what? Put it together into a scenario that makes
> sense. All you have done is point to some loose threads and when you
> put it all together, you have a pile of loose threads.
>
Not loose threads. Lies.
bigdog
Oh great. I have to be a board certified forensic pathologist but you can
spout all the nonsense you want with no credentials whatsoever. I have
done nothing more than repeat the unanimous verdict of those who are
qualified while you have taken an opposing viewpoint with no
qualifications whatsoever. Not only are you not qualified, you can't point
to a single qualified person who shares your view.
> > not the autopsy team misplaced the entrance wound does not trump the
> > fact the headshot came from behind JFK. The only people who believe
> > otherwise are rank amateurs who think they can do a better job of
> > analyzing the evidence than the pros even though they have seen only a
> > fraction of the medical evidence.
>
> I've seen a lot more of the medical evidence than you have. What does
> that make you?
>
It makes me a layman who knows better than to tell professionals how
to do their job. Maybe someday you will figure that out too.
>
>
> > Why would you think that. JFK's head was a bloody mess and apparently
> > Jackie had made some effort to close the flap over the blow out so
> > that the true nature of the head wound would not be apparent. There
> > was one witness who did accurately see the head wound before there was
> > any manipulation of it. That was Zapruder's camera. It shows exactly
> > where the blow out was and it sure as hell wasn't in the back of the
> > head. It was only the upper right side.
>
> Sure, but from Zapruder's perspective it could not show the LEFT side of
> the head.
>
Oh boy, could we be breaking new ground here. With all the crazy theories
that I have heard over the years, I have not encountered one CT who has
suggested that there was an exit on the left side of the head. Is that
where you really want to go now? If not, why would you even bother to
bring up the left side of the head?
>
>
>
>
> >> For example, the 6.5 "object" in the head x-ray - gosh it gives all
> >> appearances of being a bullet fragment.
> >> The Clark Panel said it was a "large, metallic fragment".
> >> But Humes, Boswell et. al. testify they carefully examined all x-rays
> >> - no fragments found.
> >> Quite frankly a contradiction like this is suspicious.
> >> Why would Autopsy Doctors miss a large 6.5 fragment that was easily
> >> discernable to the Clark Panel?
> >> Contradiction #3.
>
> > So tell us what that means if there was such a fragment.
>
> >> Who knows why the weight of JFK's brain is listed at 1500 grams - it
> >> basically implies that despite being splattered none of is missing.
> >> From Wiki: "The average weight of an adult human brain is about
> >> 1300-1400 grams."
>
> > So tell us what that means.
>
> It means the autopsy doctors lied.
>
And why would they lie about that, Tony? Do you think fudging about the
weight of JFK's brain would change much of anything? Wikipedia is hardly
the most accurate source of information but for the sake of argument,
let's say that figure is correct. Does that mean that everyone has an
average sized brain or are there some people with smaller than average
brains and some people with larger than average brains?
> >> Sure, sure - I can hear it now.
> >> "Well, maybe JFK had an abnormally large brain and when it lost tissue
> >> it weighed 1500 grams."
> >> Contradiction #4.
>
> >> Of course they didn't section the brain to definitively chart or
> >> diagram the paths of the bullet or bullets.
> >> Thus the evidence that the wounds came from behind are these 2 weird
> >> floating wounds that move around JFK's skull like jellyfish in the
> >> sea.
>
> > No the evidence that the shot came from behind is the beveling of the
> > skull wall where the bullet holes were. They were beveled inward in
> > the back of the head and outward on the right side. That proves beyond
>
> You can't prove that without relying on lying idiots.
>
What idiots do you rely on to reach your opposing viewpoint?
>
>
> > any doubt that the bullet passed from back to front and every forensic
> > pathologist knows that which is why none of you can't point to a
> > single qualified forensic pathologist who would say otherwise. Only
> > rank amateurs such as yourself can look at the medical evidence and
> > come to any other conclusion which gets us back to the central
> > question of this thread. Why do you reject the unanimous opinion of
> > the people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes
> > to forensic medicine?
>
> >> Nor did they section the bullet wound located at the base of the neck,
> >> or between the shoulder blades, or wherever the hey it is.
>
> > Again, the unanimous verdict of the qualified people who have seen the
> > evidence is that the back wound is an entrance and that the bullet
> > transited and exited from the throat. So why do you think you are more
> > qualified than they are to render such a judgement.
>
> Maybe because we are not paid to lie.
>
Does that mean you lie for free?
jbarge
> >>> "Here's a fun game - list all the Warren Report testimony of the
>
> Parkland Doctors, Secret Service agents et. al. who place the exit wound
> where the HSCA finds it. Hey - NONE." <<<
>
> Doesn't really matter.
>
> Why?
>
> Because there's much BETTER evidence to rely on when trying to figure out
> exactly where the large exit wound was located on John F. Kennedy's head.
> And that "much better evidence" is (and always has been) this evidence
> (especially the X-ray):
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009a.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
>
> "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
> were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
> they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41
>
>
> Was the HSCA lying its collective ass off when it said the above words
> in Volume #7?
Oh no - just that the original Autopsy doctors don't know how to
measure using a ruler.
Eh, say what?
Why wouldn't grown men, all with college medical degrees, not be able
to look at a bullet wound and accurately describe the location of it?
No answers except, well, they all just must have made a boo-boo.
Have you read the HSCA testimony of Humes - gee, he seemed to think it
was near crazy that the bullet wound was at the top of the head.
To me it's spooky reading it - I start to wonder, well, why would have
the original autopsy doctors made that error?
Okay, the experts verified the x-rays, agreed.
Just like those experts verified the 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll.
I can hear it now - "Oh, well, now wait a minute - THOSE experts were
wrong!"
Uh huh.
So I am just supposed to take these experts - but not those experts
over there - at face value, because, well, they're so smart AND they
verify what you believe.
Uh huh.
The fragment in the skull that the Clark Panel identified as metal -
why wouldn't the autopsy doctors - plural - who had all the time they
needed not see the fragment?
The Clark Panel easily saw it - hey, it's right there!
Oh, just another kooky boo-boo, made by sober grown men who all have
medical degrees.
That really stops me in my tracks - what exactly is going on here?
Now as for the fact that none of the witnesses in Parkland before
Bethesda describe JFK head wounds as they've been "verified" by Clark
& HSCA.
I understand human testimony can easily be mistaken, and that
scientific evidence should trump it.
But I find it odd - every single one of them - without exception -
were mistaken.
It would seem that somebody somewhere would've seen the wound and
described it correctly even if only by sheer randomness.
But then when I turn to the scientific evidence - on a very basic
level THE PHOTOS & X-RAYS DON'T MATCH THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
What kind of scientific evidence is this?
I search in vain for confirmation that the head wounds in the autopsy
report - er, no, wait, the head wounds in the HSCA & Clark Report -
are the only head wounds that exist, and that the brain injuries
indicate that there is only a back-to-front path.
But they didn't section the brain - whoops.
And then - and this is totally bizarre to me - they say JFK's brain
weighs 1500 grams.
Say what?
This is starting to wear thin - why does the brain weigh 1500 grams?
"Well, the photos and the x-rays have been verified. You can go back
to sleep."
Pardon me if I dig a little deeper - what exactly do the x-rays show?
How much bone is missing on these x-rays?
Why did the "expert" question why so much bone was missing in the x-
ray?
Dr. Angel: It's really hard to be sure, square this with the X-ray
which shows so much bone lost in the frontal area.
7 HSCA 249
This process for verification - is there any margin for error?
You know - like the experts for the audio tape who have been so
mercilessly debunked.
Does the person who developed the x-ray confirm the paper used?
Why do the autopys doctors seem so slow to embrace the x-rays &
photos, at least of the entry wound on the head?
When they say the photographs have been verified - is there any margin
for error?
Have autopsy technicians confirmed that it is the morgue shown in the
background?
Has anyone asked them, In the photo is this how the morgue looked?
I make no guesses or propose any theories to explain these
contradictions in the medical evidence, but honestly as a truth-loving
patriotic American, I'm not just going to say, "I believe whatever an
expert says, even if there's a bunch of contradictions with the
evidence, right there in plain sight."
Right string but the wrong yo-yo I guess.
"When we encounter contradiction, we must suspect deception."
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Anthony Marsh
Peterson and Coe.
>>> not the autopsy team misplaced the entrance wound does not trump the
>>> fact the headshot came from behind JFK. The only people who believe
>>> otherwise are rank amateurs who think they can do a better job of
>>> analyzing the evidence than the pros even though they have seen only a
>>> fraction of the medical evidence.
>> I've seen a lot more of the medical evidence than you have. What does
>> that make you?
>>
>
> It makes me a layman who knows better than to tell professionals how
> to do their job. Maybe someday you will figure that out too.
>
But you are going around telling everyone what the medical evidence shows.
>>
>>> Why would you think that. JFK's head was a bloody mess and apparently
>>> Jackie had made some effort to close the flap over the blow out so
>>> that the true nature of the head wound would not be apparent. There
>>> was one witness who did accurately see the head wound before there was
>>> any manipulation of it. That was Zapruder's camera. It shows exactly
>>> where the blow out was and it sure as hell wasn't in the back of the
>>> head. It was only the upper right side.
>> Sure, but from Zapruder's perspective it could not show the LEFT side of
>> the head.
>>
>
> Oh boy, could we be breaking new ground here. With all the crazy theories
> that I have heard over the years, I have not encountered one CT who has
> suggested that there was an exit on the left side of the head. Is that
> where you really want to go now? If not, why would you even bother to
> bring up the left side of the head?
>
It did not say there was an exit wound on the left side of the head. WC
defenders say there SHOULD be one if the shot came from the right front.
False assumption. And some conspiracy believers think there was a huge
exit wound on the left rear of the skull. But there was damage to the left
side of the head because the exit wound extended into the left top of the
head.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> For example, the 6.5 "object" in the head x-ray - gosh it gives all
>>>> appearances of being a bullet fragment.
>>>> The Clark Panel said it was a "large, metallic fragment".
>>>> But Humes, Boswell et. al. testify they carefully examined all x-rays
>>>> - no fragments found.
>>>> Quite frankly a contradiction like this is suspicious.
>>>> Why would Autopsy Doctors miss a large 6.5 fragment that was easily
>>>> discernable to the Clark Panel?
>>>> Contradiction #3.
>>> So tell us what that means if there was such a fragment.
>>>> Who knows why the weight of JFK's brain is listed at 1500 grams - it
>>>> basically implies that despite being splattered none of is missing.
>>>> From Wiki: "The average weight of an adult human brain is about
>>>> 1300-1400 grams."
>>> So tell us what that means.
>> It means the autopsy doctors lied.
>>
>
> And why would they lie about that, Tony? Do you think fudging about the
> weight of JFK's brain would change much of anything? Wikipedia is hardly
> the most accurate source of information but for the sake of argument,
> let's say that figure is correct. Does that mean that everyone has an
> average sized brain or are there some people with smaller than average
> brains and some people with larger than average brains?
You are going about this all wrong. As a WC defender you should be arguing
that although 1/4 of his brain was blasted out he started out with a brain
that was 1/3 larger than a normal person. Yeah, that sounds believable to
WC defenders.
>
>>>> Sure, sure - I can hear it now.
>>>> "Well, maybe JFK had an abnormally large brain and when it lost tissue
>>>> it weighed 1500 grams."
>>>> Contradiction #4.
>>>> Of course they didn't section the brain to definitively chart or
>>>> diagram the paths of the bullet or bullets.
>>>> Thus the evidence that the wounds came from behind are these 2 weird
>>>> floating wounds that move around JFK's skull like jellyfish in the
>>>> sea.
>>> No the evidence that the shot came from behind is the beveling of the
>>> skull wall where the bullet holes were. They were beveled inward in
>>> the back of the head and outward on the right side. That proves beyond
>> You can't prove that without relying on lying idiots.
>>
>
> What idiots do you rely on to reach your opposing viewpoint?
>
The autopsy doctors.
If Boswell says that the back wound was ABOVE Kennedy's shoulders that
is absolute proof that it was BELOW the top of Kennedy's shoulder.
>>
>>> any doubt that the bullet passed from back to front and every forensic
>>> pathologist knows that which is why none of you can't point to a
>>> single qualified forensic pathologist who would say otherwise. Only
>>> rank amateurs such as yourself can look at the medical evidence and
>>> come to any other conclusion which gets us back to the central
>>> question of this thread. Why do you reject the unanimous opinion of
>>> the people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes
>>> to forensic medicine?
>>>> Nor did they section the bullet wound located at the base of the neck,
>>>> or between the shoulder blades, or wherever the hey it is.
>>> Again, the unanimous verdict of the qualified people who have seen the
>>> evidence is that the back wound is an entrance and that the bullet
>>> transited and exited from the throat. So why do you think you are more
>>> qualified than they are to render such a judgement.
>> Maybe because we are not paid to lie.
>>
>
> Does that mean you lie for free?
>
Mods?
bigdog
> >> I've seen a lot more of the medical evidence than you have. What does
> >> that make you?
>
> > It makes me a layman who knows better than to tell professionals how
> > to do their job. Maybe someday you will figure that out too.
>
> But you are going around telling everyone what the medical evidence shows.
>
No, I am going around telling everyone what the unanimous opinion of the
qualified forensic pathologists is about what the medical evidence shows.
They are telling us the medical evidence says one thing and Tony Marsh is
telling us it shows something exactly the opposite. So who should we
believe?
> >> Sure, but from Zapruder's perspective it could not show the LEFT side of
> >> the head.
>
> > Oh boy, could we be breaking new ground here. With all the crazy theories
> > that I have heard over the years, I have not encountered one CT who has
> > suggested that there was an exit on the left side of the head. Is that
> > where you really want to go now? If not, why would you even bother to
> > bring up the left side of the head?
>
> It did not say there was an exit wound on the left side of the head.
So I ask again, why would you bother to bring up the fact that
Zapruder's camera didn't show the left side of the head.
> WC defenders say there SHOULD be one if the shot came from the right front.
> False assumption.
There should be an exit wound on the left side of the head or a bullet
remaining inside the head. There was neither.
> And some conspiracy believers think there was a huge
> exit wound on the left rear of the skull.
Really? Who would those people be.
> But there was damage to the left
> side of the head because the exit wound extended into the left top of the
> head.
>
And we can see that in the Z-film????
>
> > > It means the autopsy doctors lied.
>
> > And why would they lie about that, Tony? Do you think fudging about the
> > weight of JFK's brain would change much of anything? Wikipedia is hardly
> > the most accurate source of information but for the sake of argument,
> > let's say that figure is correct. Does that mean that everyone has an
> > average sized brain or are there some people with smaller than average
> > brains and some people with larger than average brains?
>
> You are going about this all wrong. As a WC defender you should be arguing
> that although 1/4 of his brain was blasted out he started out with a brain
> that was 1/3 larger than a normal person. Yeah, that sounds believable to
> WC defenders.
>
Back up. You claimed the autopsy doctors lied about the weight of the
brain and I asked you why they would lie about a thing like that. Do you
have an answer?
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 14, 12:37 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Here's a fun game - list all the Warren Report testimony of the
>> Parkland Doctors, Secret Service agents et. al. who place the exit wound
>> where the HSCA finds it. Hey - NONE." <<<
>>
>> Doesn't really matter.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because there's much BETTER evidence to rely on when trying to figure out
>> exactly where the large exit wound was located on John F. Kennedy's head.
>> And that "much better evidence" is (and always has been) this evidence
>> (especially the X-ray):
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009a.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
>>
>> "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
>> were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
>> they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>>
>> Was the HSCA lying its collective ass off when it said the above words
>> in Volume #7?
>
> Oh no - just that the original Autopsy doctors don't know how to
> measure using a ruler.
The original autopsy doctors didn't even know that they needed to use a
ruler until Finck showed them how.
> Eh, say what?
> Why wouldn't grown men, all with college medical degrees, not be able
> to look at a bullet wound and accurately describe the location of it?
First, because they were morons. Second because the were following
military orders.
> No answers except, well, they all just must have made a boo-boo.
That's a cool way to phrase it. Drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and say
uh oh, I made a boo-boo.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 15, 4:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I've seen a lot more of the medical evidence than you have. What does
>>>> that make you?
>>> It makes me a layman who knows better than to tell professionals how
>>> to do their job. Maybe someday you will figure that out too.
>> But you are going around telling everyone what the medical evidence shows.
>>
>
> No, I am going around telling everyone what the unanimous opinion of the
> qualified forensic pathologists is about what the medical evidence shows.
> They are telling us the medical evidence says one thing and Tony Marsh is
> telling us it shows something exactly the opposite. So who should we
> believe?
>
Coe and Peterson.
>>>> Sure, but from Zapruder's perspective it could not show the LEFT side of
>>>> the head.
>>> Oh boy, could we be breaking new ground here. With all the crazy theories
>>> that I have heard over the years, I have not encountered one CT who has
>>> suggested that there was an exit on the left side of the head. Is that
>>> where you really want to go now? If not, why would you even bother to
>>> bring up the left side of the head?
>> It did not say there was an exit wound on the left side of the head.
>
> So I ask again, why would you bother to bring up the fact that
> Zapruder's camera didn't show the left side of the head.
>
You were babbling on about seeing an exit wound on the left side of the
head.
>> WC defenders say there SHOULD be one if the shot came from the right front.
>> False assumption.
>
> There should be an exit wound on the left side of the head or a bullet
> remaining inside the head. There was neither.
>
Wrong.
>> And some conspiracy believers think there was a huge
>> exit wound on the left rear of the skull.
>
> Really? Who would those people be.
>
Liftonites.
>> But there was damage to the left
>> side of the head because the exit wound extended into the left top of the
>> head.
>>
>
> And we can see that in the Z-film????
No, not under the scalp.
You can see it on the autopsy doctors diagrams.
>
>>>> It means the autopsy doctors lied.
>>> And why would they lie about that, Tony? Do you think fudging about the
>>> weight of JFK's brain would change much of anything? Wikipedia is hardly
>>> the most accurate source of information but for the sake of argument,
>>> let's say that figure is correct. Does that mean that everyone has an
>>> average sized brain or are there some people with smaller than average
>>> brains and some people with larger than average brains?
>> You are going about this all wrong. As a WC defender you should be arguing
>> that although 1/4 of his brain was blasted out he started out with a brain
>> that was 1/3 larger than a normal person. Yeah, that sounds believable to
>> WC defenders.
>>
>
> Back up. You claimed the autopsy doctors lied about the weight of the
> brain and I asked you why they would lie about a thing like that. Do you
> have an answer?
Yes, because they did not bother weighing it then and just filled in a
nominal weight.
tomnln
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one would YOU care to debate me in David?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4aadba8e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...