Backtrack the location of the entry wound

[BOZ]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg

Backtrack the location to the entry wound. We should be able to follow
the fractures back down to the entry wound. The fractures backtrack to a
low entry wound.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/19/2017 2:34 PM, BOZ wrote:
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg
>
> Backtrack the location to the entry wound. We should be able to follow

I did, by doing a least squares fit of the lead fragments.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif

My blue line is above the HSCA's red line.

> the fractures back down to the entry wound. The fractures backtrack to a
> low entry wound.
>

No. Studivan refutes that.

And fracture lines are more complicated.
Cummings does not even know about contrecoup fracture lines.

[mainframetech]

OK, here's a photo of the BOH. Show me where:

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg

Chris

[BOZ]

Contrecoup fracture lines? You think JFK's death was caused by a fall?

[BOZ]

That photo is a fake

[Anthony Marsh]

He can't. It's not his theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't know what you are talking about, Contrecoup does not happen only
during a fall. Contecoup is also caused by bullets. In Doc Edgerton's
famous example of shooting a lightbulb you can see the fractures on the
other side of the bullet before the bullet has even gotten there.

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/death-of-a-light-bulb-0

Death of a Light Bulb
Science & Technology
negative
Harold E. Edgerton
Edgerton, Harold Eugene
1936

Flying through the air at over 1800 miles per hour, a .30 caliber bullet
collides with a light bulb. The shock waves from the impact move even
faster than the bullet, cracking the glass on the far side of the bulb
before the bullet exits. The bullet breaks free in a cloud of glass
fragments and continues on its way. These photos represent an elapsed time
of about 3/10,000th of a second, with each individual exposure lasting
about 1/1,000,000th of a second. Though the series appears to be of a
single bullet smashing a single light bulb, it is actually a composite of
four separate bullets and bulbs. Edgerton used this technique often when
photographing repeatable phenomena, in order to portray the event as
accurately and with as much detail as possible.

HEE-NC-36010

SCIENCE

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean the original autopsy photos are fakes?

[mainframetech]

Ah, an expert speaks! Actually, many of the 'leaked' photos were
altered one way or another', but the one I showed is the one with the BOH
shown untouched and undamaged, which is the fake. You're welcome to go to
the internet and find ANY other copy of that particular photo and check it
and you'll find the exact same situation. They made a few mistakes when
they selected the photos they would 'leak' to the public to shut them up
and make them believe the government story of the murder.

This photo I showed doesn't have a bullet hole in any of the places
that the prosectors pointed out to the WC. It also didn't have the major
'large hole' that was seen back there by over 39+ witnesses.

Another 'leaked' photo shows a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, but you have to ENLARGE the photo to see it, and they probably
missed it when selecting this set for public consumption.

There are many things that are fake about this case, and they become
obvious when folks relax and think over what they are hearing and seeing.

Chris

[BOZ]

You have two different spellings. Marsh:"Contrecoup does not happen only
> during a fall. Contecoup"

[BOZ]

I WAS JOKING FOR GOD'S SAKE.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/21/2017 4:24 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 9:33:10 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Backtrack the location to the entry wound. We should be able to follow
>>>> the fractures back down to the entry wound. The fractures backtrack to a
>>>> low entry wound.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, here's a photo of the BOH. Show me where:
>>>
>>> http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> That photo is a fake
>
>
>
> Ah, an expert speaks! Actually, many of the 'leaked' photos were
> altered one way or another', but the one I showed is the one with the BOH
> shown untouched and undamaged, which is the fake. You're welcome to go to

What gives you the right to claim that you only upload genuine photos
and everyone else uploads fakes? You don't have the Groden inert, you
don't have any of the Fox set or Groden set. All you have seen are
things you downloaded from kook sites.

> the internet and find ANY other copy of that particular photo and check it
> and you'll find the exact same situation. They made a few mistakes when
> they selected the photos they would 'leak' to the public to shut them up
> and make them believe the government story of the murder.
>

Who is this THEY of which you speak? You don't know. I do. Only one man.
James Fox, a Secret Service agent who made extra prints of the negatives
he made prints of for the official files. Slightly difference but still
first generation prints.

> This photo I showed doesn't have a bullet hole in any of the places
> that the prosectors pointed out to the WC. It also didn't have the major
> 'large hole' that was seen back there by over 39+ witnesses.
>

There is no large hole. Only people with large mouths.

> Another 'leaked' photo shows a bullet hole in the forehead/temple
> area, but you have to ENLARGE the photo to see it, and they probably
> missed it when selecting this set for public consumption.
>

No. The photo of the skull shows the bullet hole in the forehead.
WC defenders are not allowed to see it.

> There are many things that are fake about this case, and they become
> obvious when folks relax and think over what they are hearing and seeing.
>

You need to stop and think it through.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't be a Grammar Nazi. No soup for you.

[bigdog]

This last sentence pretty much sums up the way you look at this case. You
decided a long time ago what you wanted to believe. Any evidence which
doesn't fit your beliefs must be fake or you claim it doesn't prove
anything. In your mind pretty much all the evidence falls into one of
those two categories. Having dismissed all the real evidence, you turn to
charlatans who dreamed up stories many years after the fact and fed them
to gullible conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself. You believe Jerrol
Custer's nonsense about a bullet falling from JFK's back. You believe Paul
O'Connor's nonsense about the body being in a shipping casket. You believe
George Whitaker's tale about the windshield being replaced in Michigan on
the 25th even though there isn't a scrap of supporting evidence and there
is documentation that the windshield was replaced in Washington the
following day. You believe the silly book written by Collom and Sample
which doesn't include a scrap of corroborating evidence. There isn't a
scrap of contemporaneous evidence which supports any of these stories.
When the inconsistencies in the stories of these "witnesses" are pointed
out, you invent more excuses as to why their stories don't fit the body of
evidence. You claim the Bethesda pathologists were ordered to lie. You
tell us the Z-film was faked. You claim the autopsy photos that were
leaked are fakes with the exception of course the one you are claiming
shows a bullet hole in the "forehead/temple". You tell us the opinions of
all those highly regarded medical examiners who saw the original autopsy
photos and x-rays don't count because they reached a different conclusion
than you did. Your excuse for dismissing their opinions is they didn't see
the body and didn't enlarge the one photo you accept as genuine. You
didn't see the body either and are basing your opinions on ONE low grade
copy of the original photos but you, Carnac the Magnificent in your divine
and mystical ways, are able to determine there was an entrance wound in
JFK's "forehead/temple" having never seen the body or any of the original
photos and x-rays.

Do you really think your approach is the least bit convincing to anyone
with a functioning brain in their head?

[mainframetech]

WRONG! This appears to be one of your useless tirades about me that
are completely your opinion, and carry zero weight. Why go on like this?

Having dismissed all the real evidence, you turn to
> charlatans who dreamed up stories many years after the fact and fed them
> to gullible conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself. You believe Jerrol
> Custer's nonsense about a bullet falling from JFK's back. You believe Paul
> O'Connor's nonsense about the body being in a shipping casket.

WRONG! You can't even remember who said what. The person I quote
sworn testimony about seeing JFK in the SHIPPPING casket was Edward Reed,
X-ray Technician. And he wasn't alone as a witness to what Humes and
Boswell did to the body.

You believe
> George Whitaker's tale about the windshield being replaced in Michigan on
> the 25th even though there isn't a scrap of supporting evidence and there
> is documentation that the windshield was replaced in Washington the
> following day. You believe the silly book written by Collom and Sample
> which doesn't include a scrap of corroborating evidence. There isn't a
> scrap of contemporaneous evidence which supports any of these stories.
> When the inconsistencies in the stories of these "witnesses" are pointed
> out, you invent more excuses as to why their stories don't fit the body of
> evidence. You claim the Bethesda pathologists were ordered to lie. You
> tell us the Z-film was faked. You claim the autopsy photos that were
> leaked are fakes with the exception of course the one you are claiming
> shows a bullet hole in the "forehead/temple". You tell us the opinions of
> all those highly regarded medical examiners who saw the original autopsy
> photos and x-rays don't count because they reached a different conclusion
> than you did. Your excuse for dismissing their opinions is they didn't see
> the body and didn't enlarge the one photo you accept as genuine. You
> didn't see the body either and are basing your opinions on ONE low grade
> copy of the original photos but you, Carnac the Magnificent in your divine
> and mystical ways, are able to determine there was an entrance wound in
> JFK's "forehead/temple" having never seen the body or any of the original
> photos and x-rays.
>
> Do you really think your approach is the least bit convincing to anyone
> with a functioning brain in their head?

Since you don't, you have no input here. If you're all done playing
psychologist, try evidence and you might do better. Demeaning me or
discrediting me won't cut it.
rz

Chris

[bigdog]

It's also a spot on description of how you approach the case. It's not as
if you don't provide examples of these practices numerous times a week.

>
>
>
> Having dismissed all the real evidence, you turn to
> > charlatans who dreamed up stories many years after the fact and fed them
> > to gullible conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself. You believe Jerrol
> > Custer's nonsense about a bullet falling from JFK's back. You believe Paul
> > O'Connor's nonsense about the body being in a shipping casket.
>
>
>
> WRONG! You can't even remember who said what. The person I quote
> sworn testimony about seeing JFK in the SHIPPPING casket was Edward Reed,
> X-ray Technician. And he wasn't alone as a witness to what Humes and
> Boswell did to the body.
>

Ok, tell use exactly what REED said he saw Humes and Boswell do to the
body. We've already seen your spin on what Reed said.

Of course I don't. Nobody who disagrees with what you have decided to
believe has any input. You've made up your mind and you aren't going to
accept anything that is at odds with what you chose to believe.

> If you're all done playing
> psychologist, try evidence and you might do better. Demeaning me or
> discrediting me won't cut it.

The evidence has been shown to you on numerous occasions and each and
every time you found an excuse to dismiss it. What is there left to do but
point out the flaws in your ideas and your methodology.

[mainframetech]

You've expressed your opinion many times of my abilities or lack of
them, so why repeat them all over again? It's like Trump with his stupid
talk about having a landslide election, which he didn't have. He can't
get away from the fact that he wasn't the more popular candidate. He was
so bothered about it that he invented 3-5,000,000 voters committing fraud
and voting for Hillary, just to make it look like he won the popular vote
too! How childish!

> > Having dismissed all the real evidence, you turn to
> > > charlatans who dreamed up stories many years after the fact and fed them
> > > to gullible conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself. You believe Jerrol
> > > Custer's nonsense about a bullet falling from JFK's back. You believe Paul
> > > O'Connor's nonsense about the body being in a shipping casket.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You can't even remember who said what. The person I quote

> > sworn testimony about seeing JFK in the SHIPPING casket was Edward Reed,

> > X-ray Technician. And he wasn't alone as a witness to what Humes and
> > Boswell did to the body.
> >
>
> Ok, tell use exactly what REED said he saw Humes and Boswell do to the
> body. We've already seen your spin on what Reed said.
>

There's no spin, so you're WRONG from the get-go. I repeated his
sworn testimony to you long ago. I will do it again in part now:

"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 all 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 first 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: 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."

Page 58
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf



This occurred right after 6:35pm when the body was taken out of the
SHIPPIBNG casket. Reed was also a witness to that happening. The autopsy
did NOT occur until 8:00pm when all the bigwigs arrived to watch.

WRONG! I've occasionally been shown I was wrong on some things, and I
changed my beliefs from it. You of course, have only the WCR, so it would
be a cold day in hell that you could convince me I've made a mistake about
anything.

> > If you're all done playing
> > psychologist, try evidence and you might do better. Demeaning me or
> > discrediting me won't cut it.
>
> The evidence has been shown to you on numerous occasions and each and
> every time you found an excuse to dismiss it. What is there left to do but
> point out the flaws in your ideas and your methodology.

I have yet to dismiss ANY evidence, but I will on occasion use it
differently than you might.

Chris

[bigdog]

It's only a matter of time before you blame Trump for being responsible
for covering up a conspiracy to kill JFK. It's about the only thing the
mainstream media hasn't blamed him for. Give them time.

>
>
>
> > > Having dismissed all the real evidence, you turn to
> > > > charlatans who dreamed up stories many years after the fact and fed them
> > > > to gullible conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself. You believe Jerrol
> > > > Custer's nonsense about a bullet falling from JFK's back. You believe Paul
> > > > O'Connor's nonsense about the body being in a shipping casket.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You can't even remember who said what. The person I quote
> > > sworn testimony about seeing JFK in the SHIPPING casket was Edward Reed,
> > > X-ray Technician. And he wasn't alone as a witness to what Humes and
> > > Boswell did to the body.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, tell use exactly what REED said he saw Humes and Boswell do to the
> > body. We've already seen your spin on what Reed said.
> >
>
>
> There's no spin, so you're WRONG from the get-go. I repeated his
> sworn testimony to you long ago. I will do it again in part now:
>
> "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 > 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 first across

> the top of your forehead. roughly along thewere all allowed

> to sit up in the podium and observe.

> hairline -
> A: With a scalpel.
> Q: - and then pulling the scalp back.
> A: That’s correct. Just like this.
> 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."
>
> Page 58
> http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
>

What part of the described procedure do you think is not something that is
normally done during an autopsy for someone who had been shot in the head?
You must also think that while doing this "clandestine" surgery they "were

all allowed to sit up in the podium and observe."


>
>

> This occurred right after 6:35pm when the body was taken out of the
> SHIPPIBNG casket. Reed was also a witness to that happening. The autopsy
> did NOT occur until 8:00pm when all the bigwigs arrived to watch.
>

The autopsy began when the autopsy began. The procedure described by Reed
was part of the autopsy.

As I was saying...

>
>
>
> > > If you're all done playing
> > > psychologist, try evidence and you might do better. Demeaning me or
> > > discrediting me won't cut it.
> >
> > The evidence has been shown to you on numerous occasions and each and
> > every time you found an excuse to dismiss it. What is there left to do but
> > point out the flaws in your ideas and your methodology.
>
>
> I have yet to dismiss ANY evidence, but I will on occasion use it
> differently than you might.
>

So when you say the medical review panels have no input, you don't think
you are dismissing evidence that conflicts with your beliefs? Do you have
any idea how funny that is?

[Anthony Marsh]

>> A: That???s correct. Just like this.

>> 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 -

Well, McAdams said we have to tie Trump directly into the JFK
assassination if we want to mention his name here. I reminded him that
Trump was drunk at the time.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Makes no sense to blame Trump for that when there are so many
things he's going to be responsible for soon anyway. Give it time.

How foolish of you! That clip occurred at shortly after 6:35pm when
the autopsy hadn't started yet. See Wikipedia for the time of the autopsy
beginning. It was 8:00pm. At 6:35pm there was no one of importance in
the gallery, and the family and the SS and FBI agents hadn't arrived yet.
No autopsy was going on, but the clandestine work was in progress.

> > This occurred right after 6:35pm when the body was taken out of the

> > SHIPPING casket. Reed was also a witness to that happening. The autopsy

> > did NOT occur until 8:00pm when all the bigwigs arrived to watch.
> >
>
> The autopsy began when the autopsy began. The procedure described by Reed
> was part of the autopsy.
>

FALSE! You don't get to go back in time and set the time of the
autopsy. There was NO autopsy going on at that time, and Humes and
Boswell later tried to cover up that they had done the clandestine work by
pretending that they didn't know about it. That has been shown to you,
but of course, your convenient memory will have forgotten it by now.
We've done this conversation already a good while ago.

The evidence existed outside of them. They had no evidence to
present, only to look over and review. And they reviewed only a small
part of the real evidence, and so were unable to make intelligent
opinions. But you know that, since we've been over it many times.

Chris

[donald willis]

I get it. Shrinkage!

[bigdog]

I asked you what part of the procedure which Reed described is not
something that would be done a normal part of the autopsy. You seem to
have no answer for that. Your whole argument rests on the initial
procedures done by Humes and Boswell being something nefarious and rather
than something that would be done during the normal course of an autopsy.
If you can't provide any evidence that what Humes and Boswell were doing
was beyond the scope of a normal autopsy then there is no reason to
believe it was and the autopsy began when they performed that initial
procedure whatever time that was.

>
>
> > > This occurred right after 6:35pm when the body was taken out of the
> > > SHIPPING casket. Reed was also a witness to that happening. The autopsy
> > > did NOT occur until 8:00pm when all the bigwigs arrived to watch.
> > >
> >
> > The autopsy began when the autopsy began. The procedure described by Reed
> > was part of the autopsy.
> >
>
>
> FALSE! You don't get to go back in time and set the time of the
> autopsy. There was NO autopsy going on at that time, and Humes and
> Boswell later tried to cover up that they had done the clandestine work by
> pretending that they didn't know about it. That has been shown to you,
> but of course, your convenient memory will have forgotten it by now.
> We've done this conversation already a good while ago.
>

You have still not shown that anything Humes and Boswell did was
clandestine work and not a normal autopsy procedure. Like most of
everything else you believe, it is based on things you assume rather than
what you can establish through evidence.

You continue to ignore the fact they saw far more than you and know far
more than you which makes it foolish for anyone to believe you and dismiss
them.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you old enough to remember Watergate?
Remember that someone famous said it's not the crime that does you in,
it's the cover-up. Just admit the truth and resign.

That YOU know about.

[Anthony Marsh]

Answer:
A. Probing a bullet wound with your finger. No one is stupid enough to
do that.
B. Not dissecting the back wound. No doctor would fail to do that.

> procedures done by Humes and Boswell being something nefarious and rather
> than something that would be done during the normal course of an autopsy.
> If you can't provide any evidence that what Humes and Boswell were doing
> was beyond the scope of a normal autopsy then there is no reason to
> believe it was and the autopsy began when they performed that initial
> procedure whatever time that was.
>

The stupid was done by The Three Stooges.
The nefarious was done by the unnamed General.

You continue to ignore the fact that they knew it was a conspiracy and
were ordered to cover it up.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I wouldn't want you to think that, so here's the reasons for
why they did what they did. They were looking for bullets and fragments
from guns that may have been other than Oswald's. Bullets from any other
gun would ruin the 'lone nut' image they had to put forward to save all
the plotters from being chased down. It is not normal in an autopsy with
bullet wounds to look for the bullets first. They look for wounds and
record them, and they look for paths of bullets, and many similar thing
before any bullet removal. But they went right for the bullet removal and
then they messed with the brain which should have been used to determine
bullet type and direction.

Since you're not familiar with the instructions for autopsy
procedures, it wouldn't mean anything to you. As well, since the autopsy
was scheduled for 8:00pm, for when the gallery would have all the admirals
and bigwigs there, why would they perform the autopsy hours before?
Right, they wouldn't.

To refresh yourself on autopsy protocols, see Section 501. "Autopsy
Protocol", where you'll find a list of steps to take when doing an
autopsy:

https://www.in.gov/ctb/files/section501.pdf


Note that the protocols do NOT start with a search for bullets, which
the X-ray Technicians stated was what was first on the minds of Humes and
Boswell. None of the normal preliminary steps were taken by Humes and
Boswell, they went right for the head and began cutting it open to find
bullets and to modify the wounds to look more like they were made from
above and behind.

Your whole argument rests on the initial
> procedures done by Humes and Boswell being something nefarious and rather
> than something that would be done during the normal course of an autopsy.
> If you can't provide any evidence that what Humes and Boswell were doing
> was beyond the scope of a normal autopsy then there is no reason to
> believe it was and the autopsy began when they performed that initial
> procedure whatever time that was.
>

WRONG! Of course I can, see above. You lose again. You'll never
learn. And why would you be so determined to start the autopsy at 6:35pm,
rather than the proven scheduled time of 8:00pm?

> > > > This occurred right after 6:35pm when the body was taken out of the
> > > > SHIPPING casket. Reed was also a witness to that happening. The autopsy
> > > > did NOT occur until 8:00pm when all the bigwigs arrived to watch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The autopsy began when the autopsy began. The procedure described by Reed
> > > was part of the autopsy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > FALSE! You don't get to go back in time and set the time of the
> > autopsy. There was NO autopsy going on at that time, and Humes and
> > Boswell later tried to cover up that they had done the clandestine work by
> > pretending that they didn't know about it. That has been shown to you,
> > but of course, your convenient memory will have forgotten it by now.
> > We've done this conversation already a good while ago.
> >
>
> You have still not shown that anything Humes and Boswell did was
> clandestine work and not a normal autopsy procedure. Like most of
> everything else you believe, it is based on things you assume rather than
> what you can establish through evidence.
>

WRONG! It has now been shown, see above.

WRONG! They were misled, and they did NOT see all the evidence they
needed to see to make a decent determination of cause of death. I've
shown that, but sadly, you were the one and only person in the whole world
that couldn't see the evidence. Ah well.

Chris

[bigdog]

I specifically asked you about what Reed described. Where in any of Reed's
accounts does he say they were looking for bullets prior to the start of
the autopsy? All you have done is try to support one assumption with
another.

> Since you're not familiar with the instructions for autopsy
> procedures, it wouldn't mean anything to you.

Oh, so you know what the instructions for an autopsy are. Could you be
kind enough to enlighten the rest of us. Telling us your source would be
nice too.

> As well, since the autopsy
> was scheduled for 8:00pm, for when the gallery would have all the admirals
> and bigwigs there, why would they perform the autopsy hours before?
> Right, they wouldn't.
>

Do you have evidence that they were under orders not to start the autopsy
until all the "bigwigs" were in place or is that another of your many
assumptions.

> To refresh yourself on autopsy protocols, see Section 501. "Autopsy
> Protocol", where you'll find a list of steps to take when doing an
> autopsy:
>
> https://www.in.gov/ctb/files/section501.pdf
>
>
> Note that the protocols do NOT start with a search for bullets, which
> the X-ray Technicians stated was what was first on the minds of Humes and
> Boswell. None of the normal preliminary steps were taken by Humes and
> Boswell, they went right for the head and began cutting it open to find
> bullets and to modify the wounds to look more like they were made from
> above and behind.
>

You gave no context to this source such as effective dates or who was
bound by these guidelines. Without that there is no reason to assume that
the prosectors would have been following these guidelines.

>
>
> Your whole argument rests on the initial
> > procedures done by Humes and Boswell being something nefarious and rather
> > than something that would be done during the normal course of an autopsy.
> > If you can't provide any evidence that what Humes and Boswell were doing
> > was beyond the scope of a normal autopsy then there is no reason to
> > believe it was and the autopsy began when they performed that initial
> > procedure whatever time that was.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Of course I can, see above. You lose again. You'll never
> learn. And why would you be so determined to start the autopsy at 6:35pm,
> rather than the proven scheduled time of 8:00pm?
>

You have given us nothing that indicates 8:00pm was a scheduled starting
time as opposed to an estimated start time. You've given no evidence that
anyone was under orders to wait until 8:00pm to start the process. The
body arrived at 6:35. It would have taken time to bring the body into the
morgue, to make sure the people and equipment was in place, to remove the
body from the casket and place it on the autopsy table, etc. Once that was
done, and they were ready to go, why would they twiddle their thumbs until
8:00pm given that the victim's widow and his brother, the AG of the United
States, were waiting to take possession of the body once the autopsy was
completed.

>
>
> > > > > This occurred right after 6:35pm when the body was taken out of the
> > > > > SHIPPING casket. Reed was also a witness to that happening. The autopsy
> > > > > did NOT occur until 8:00pm when all the bigwigs arrived to watch.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The autopsy began when the autopsy began. The procedure described by Reed
> > > > was part of the autopsy.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FALSE! You don't get to go back in time and set the time of the
> > > autopsy. There was NO autopsy going on at that time, and Humes and
> > > Boswell later tried to cover up that they had done the clandestine work by
> > > pretending that they didn't know about it. That has been shown to you,
> > > but of course, your convenient memory will have forgotten it by now.
> > > We've done this conversation already a good while ago.
> > >
> >
> > You have still not shown that anything Humes and Boswell did was
> > clandestine work and not a normal autopsy procedure. Like most of
> > everything else you believe, it is based on things you assume rather than
> > what you can establish through evidence.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! It has now been shown, see above.
>

Saying it has been shown does not show it. You have provided no evidence
that Humes and Boswell did any nefarious work prior to the start of the
autopsy. All you have given are your assumptions that they did that.

You have misled yourself into believing you know far more than you
actually do.