Re: Mark Lane #55

[John McAdams]

On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.


>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission accepted
>drawings as evidence, despite knowing that they were inferior to the photographs
>& X-rays.
>

Because of resistance from the Kennedy family.


>"The bypassing of relevant testimony and the destruction of hard evidence were
>nowhere more apparent than in the matter of the wounds suffered by the President
>and Governor Connally. Mrs. Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted,


For reasons of taste. We now know exactly what she said, and none of
it is conspiracy evidence.


>and the federal police agents confiscated the crucial photographs and X-rays and
>then seized radio and television tapes.

Investigators *always* collect evidence.

Is Lane implying they should not have rounded up tapes and photos?


>Commander Humes prepared and then, in
>his own words, 'destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes' about the
>autopsy he conducted.

The WC had not even been formed when Humes did that.


>Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>

And what good would "wrath" have done?

Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.

And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.

AND NOTE: above Lane is bitching about the FBI rounding up tapes and
photos, but here he is bitching about the FBI *not* rounding up the
evidence soon enough.


>'Because the shirt had been laundered, there were insufficient characteristics
>for the expert examiner to form a conclusive opinion on the direction or nature
>of the object causing the holes.'
>
>The FBI's expert examiner referred to by the Commission actually went beyond the
>Commission's summary of his remarks in describing what had happened to the
>shirt. He said that no valuable characteristics had survived. [Johnny McAdams
>would refer to this as a "lie of omission" on the part of the Warren Commission
>if he were honest...]
>
>Q. Were there sufficient characteristics observable to formulate a conclusion as
>to the cause and direction of that hole?
>FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier: No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you
>could base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet and
>if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was.
>
>The Commission cited that very page of the FBI expert's testimony as proof that
>the 'rear hole could have been caused by the entrance of a 6.5-millimeter bullet
>and the front hole by the exit of such a bullet. The word 'could' accommodates
>many possibilities, but the truth is that Frazier told Commission counsel that
>the laundering of the shirt and the cleaning and pressing of the jacket before
>an examination took place effectively prevented him from reaching any
>conclusions about the nature of the tears."

Lane is bitching about a non-issue. The nature of Connally's wounds
was and is clear.

>
>Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission showed no outrage at the
>deliberate destruction of evidence, and then lied about Frazier's testimony to
>support their theory. While certainly a relatively mild lie on the part of the
>Warren Commission - it illustrates just how they were willing to twist evidence
>to support their theory.

Lane continues to lie.

Just what *besides* a bullet do you think made the defect in
Connally's coat and shirt?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/27/2012 7:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
> More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.
>
>
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission accepted
>> drawings as evidence, despite knowing that they were inferior to the photographs
>> & X-rays.
>>
>
> Because of resistance from the Kennedy family.
>

Earl Warren personally made the decision to not use the autopsy photos.

>
>> "The bypassing of relevant testimony and the destruction of hard evidence were
>> nowhere more apparent than in the matter of the wounds suffered by the President
>> and Governor Connally. Mrs. Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted,
>
>
> For reasons of taste. We now know exactly what she said, and none of
> it is conspiracy evidence.
>

Isn't that true for every cover-up?

>
>> and the federal police agents confiscated the crucial photographs and X-rays and
>> then seized radio and television tapes.
>
> Investigators *always* collect evidence.
>

No, sometimes they intentionally do not collect evidence.
They didn't collect evidence from behind the fence.

> Is Lane implying they should not have rounded up tapes and photos?
>

No, silly.
He's saying they should have been made public instead of being covered up.

>
>> Commander Humes prepared and then, in
>> his own words, 'destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes' about the
>> autopsy he conducted.
>
> The WC had not even been formed when Humes did that.
>

But the case was still active. That is obstruction of Justice.

>
>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>> day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>> only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>> cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>> informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>> but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>
>
> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>
> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>
> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>

Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.

No. Then why do WC defenders need to lie about them?

[John McAdams]

On 27 Jul 2012 23:06:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 7/27/2012 7:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.
>>
>>
>>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission accepted
>>> drawings as evidence, despite knowing that they were inferior to the photographs
>>> & X-rays.
>>>
>>
>> Because of resistance from the Kennedy family.
>>
>
>Earl Warren personally made the decision to not use the autopsy photos.
>

The decision not to press the Kennedy family.

>>
>>> "The bypassing of relevant testimony and the destruction of hard evidence were
>>> nowhere more apparent than in the matter of the wounds suffered by the President
>>> and Governor Connally. Mrs. Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted,
>>
>>
>> For reasons of taste. We now know exactly what she said, and none of
>> it is conspiracy evidence.
>>
>
>Isn't that true for every cover-up?
>

Somehow your brain kicked out of gear here.

If it isn't "conspiracy evidence," it didn't need to be covered up.

Nothing in Jackie's testimony is conspiracy evidence.

>>
>>> and the federal police agents confiscated the crucial photographs and X-rays and
>>> then seized radio and television tapes.
>>
>> Investigators *always* collect evidence.
>>
>
>No, sometimes they intentionally do not collect evidence.
>They didn't collect evidence from behind the fence.
>

The didn't *find* anything there. Which is am embarrassment for you
folks, isn't it?

>> Is Lane implying they should not have rounded up tapes and photos?
>>
>
>No, silly.
>He's saying they should have been made public instead of being covered up.
>

But they were made public.

>>
>>> Commander Humes prepared and then, in
>>> his own words, 'destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes' about the
>>> autopsy he conducted.
>>
>> The WC had not even been formed when Humes did that.
>>
>
>But the case was still active. That is obstruction of Justice.
>

Bitch all you want, but you can't blame the WC for what Humes did.

And I'm not aware of any law that says it's obstruction of justice for
a pathologist to recopy blood spattered notes.

You guys just spew, with no legal basis.

>>
>>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>>> day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>>> only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>>> cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>>> informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>>> but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>>
>>
>> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>>
>> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>>
>> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>>
>
>Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
>And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.
>

So the HSCA lied?

Of course you believe that. You believe any testimony that you find
inconvenient is a lie.

Explain how anybody "lied" about Connally's wounds.


.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/28/2012 9:13 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2012 23:06:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2012 7:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission accepted
>>>> drawings as evidence, despite knowing that they were inferior to the photographs
>>>> & X-rays.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because of resistance from the Kennedy family.
>>>
>>
>> Earl Warren personally made the decision to not use the autopsy photos.
>>
>
> The decision not to press the Kennedy family.

He made the decision the instant he saw the photographs.

>
>>>
>>>> "The bypassing of relevant testimony and the destruction of hard evidence were
>>>> nowhere more apparent than in the matter of the wounds suffered by the President
>>>> and Governor Connally. Mrs. Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted,
>>>
>>>
>>> For reasons of taste. We now know exactly what she said, and none of
>>> it is conspiracy evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that true for every cover-up?
>>
>
> Somehow your brain kicked out of gear here.
>
> If it isn't "conspiracy evidence," it didn't need to be covered up.
>
> Nothing in Jackie's testimony is conspiracy evidence.
>

There might be a clue that some people think indicates conspiracy such
as where the wound was. Not in the front, in the back.

>
>
>>>
>>>> and the federal police agents confiscated the crucial photographs and X-rays and
>>>> then seized radio and television tapes.
>>>
>>> Investigators *always* collect evidence.
>>>
>>
>> No, sometimes they intentionally do not collect evidence.
>> They didn't collect evidence from behind the fence.
>>
>
> The didn't *find* anything there. Which is am embarrassment for you
> folks, isn't it?
>
>
>>> Is Lane implying they should not have rounded up tapes and photos?
>>>
>>
>> No, silly.
>> He's saying they should have been made public instead of being covered up.
>>
>
> But they were made public.

No, they weren't. They were leaked.
And you don't approve of leaks. You want to see whistleblowers and
leakers put in prison.

>
>
>>>
>>>> Commander Humes prepared and then, in
>>>> his own words, 'destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes' about the
>>>> autopsy he conducted.
>>>
>>> The WC had not even been formed when Humes did that.
>>>
>>
>> But the case was still active. That is obstruction of Justice.
>>
>
> Bitch all you want, but you can't blame the WC for what Humes did.

I never blamed the WC for Humes burning the autopsy report, so why are
you accusing me of doing that? You just need to make up things to accuse
me of doing?

>
> And I'm not aware of any law that says it's obstruction of justice for
> a pathologist to recopy blood spattered notes.
>

But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?

> You guys just spew, with no legal basis.
>
>>>
>>>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>>>> day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>>>> only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>>>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>>>> cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>>>> informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>>>> but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>>>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>>>
>>> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>>>
>>> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>>>
>>
>> Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
>> And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.
>>
>
> So the HSCA lied?
>

The HSCA did not say that the fragment was in the thigh bone.
Certain people here do.

> Of course you believe that. You believe any testimony that you find
> inconvenient is a lie.
>

Which testimony?

A certain person here who shall go unnamed who said that the back wound
was a VERTICAL scar. And millions of WC defenders who said the back wound
was exactly the same length as the bullet.

Again, not allowed to mention the names to protect the guilty.

>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5014fac6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I'm reminded of your uncited and undefendable claim that Humes was busy
burning paperwork Saturday morning.

>> And I'm not aware of any law that says it's obstruction of justice for
>> a pathologist to recopy blood spattered notes.
>>
>
>But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>
>> You guys just spew, with no legal basis.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>>>>>day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>>>>>only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>>>>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>>>>>cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>>>>>informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>>>>>but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>>>>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>>>>
>>>> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>>>>
>>>> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
>>> And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.
>>>
>>
>> So the HSCA lied?

Of *course* they lied. Well documented, and brought up many times before.
No LNT'er will touch it with a 10 foot pole.

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

[timstter]

On Jul 30, 12:48 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <5014fac...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/28/2012 9:13 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 27 Jul 2012 23:06:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh

You don't seem too keen to touch the documented lies of Mark Lane.

Now why is that?

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

What? He admitted it.

>
>
>>> And I'm not aware of any law that says it's obstruction of justice for
>>> a pathologist to recopy blood spattered notes.
>>>
>>
>> But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>> world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>> washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>>
>>> You guys just spew, with no legal basis.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>>>>>> day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>>>>>> only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>>>>>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>>>>>> cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>>>>>> informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>>>>>> but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>>>>>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
>>>> And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the HSCA lied?
>
>
> Of *course* they lied. Well documented, and brought up many times before.
> No LNT'er will touch it with a 10 foot pole.
>

Because they love the HSCA so much?

[John McAdams]

On 29 Jul 2012 21:16:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 7/28/2012 9:13 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2012 23:06:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2012 7:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission accepted
>>>>> drawings as evidence, despite knowing that they were inferior to the photographs
>>>>> & X-rays.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because of resistance from the Kennedy family.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Earl Warren personally made the decision to not use the autopsy photos.
>>>
>>
>> The decision not to press the Kennedy family.
>
>He made the decision the instant he saw the photographs.
>

And you know that how?

Oh, I know! You have ESP. You can know all kinds of things without
any evidence.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> "The bypassing of relevant testimony and the destruction of hard evidence were
>>>>> nowhere more apparent than in the matter of the wounds suffered by the President
>>>>> and Governor Connally. Mrs. Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For reasons of taste. We now know exactly what she said, and none of
>>>> it is conspiracy evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that true for every cover-up?
>>>
>>
>> Somehow your brain kicked out of gear here.
>>
>> If it isn't "conspiracy evidence," it didn't need to be covered up.
>>
>> Nothing in Jackie's testimony is conspiracy evidence.
>>
>
>There might be a clue that some people think indicates conspiracy such
>as where the wound was. Not in the front, in the back.
>

But she doesn't say that. She says "from the back," which is not the
same thing as "in the back of the head."

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> and the federal police agents confiscated the crucial photographs and X-rays and
>>>>> then seized radio and television tapes.
>>>>
>>>> Investigators *always* collect evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, sometimes they intentionally do not collect evidence.
>>> They didn't collect evidence from behind the fence.
>>>
>>
>> The didn't *find* anything there. Which is am embarrassment for you
>> folks, isn't it?
>>
>>
>>>> Is Lane implying they should not have rounded up tapes and photos?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, silly.
>>> He's saying they should have been made public instead of being covered up.
>>>
>>
>> But they were made public.
>
>No, they weren't. They were leaked.
>And you don't approve of leaks. You want to see whistleblowers and
>leakers put in prison.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Commander Humes prepared and then, in
>>>>> his own words, 'destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes' about the
>>>>> autopsy he conducted.
>>>>
>>>> The WC had not even been formed when Humes did that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the case was still active. That is obstruction of Justice.
>>>
>>
>> Bitch all you want, but you can't blame the WC for what Humes did.
>
>I never blamed the WC for Humes burning the autopsy report, so why are
>you accusing me of doing that? You just need to make up things to accuse
>me of doing?
>

Lane attacked the WC for that.

This thread was about Lane's attack on the WC.

>>
>> And I'm not aware of any law that says it's obstruction of justice for
>> a pathologist to recopy blood spattered notes.
>>
>
>But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>

The "burned autopsy report" is an ARRB thing, probably the result of
confusion over "burned notes" and "burned draft autopsy report."

I'll go with the earlier evidence.

>> You guys just spew, with no legal basis.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>>>>> day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>>>>> only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>>>>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>>>>> cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>>>>> informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>>>>> but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>>>>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>>>>
>>>> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>>>>
>>>> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
>>> And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.
>>>
>>
>> So the HSCA lied?
>>
>
>The HSCA did not say that the fragment was in the thigh bone.
>Certain people here do.
>

I know of no lone assassin theorist who says the fragment in in the
thigh bone.

That's a *buff* factoid.

>> Of course you believe that. You believe any testimony that you find
>> inconvenient is a lie.
>>
>
>Which testimony?
>

Any. You think the HSCA FPP was a bunch of liars, don't you?

That's not a lie. That's an understandable confusion between the
*debribed* state of the wound, and the wound as Shaw first saw it.

And either way, it indicates a tumbling bullet.

>Again, not allowed to mention the names to protect the guilty.
>

Again, your "liar! liar!" rhetoric does you no good. It's just not
possible to have as many liars in the world as you think.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ben Holmes]

In article <501681fc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Then simply quote his words, or provide a link to his words where he
claimed to have been burning papers on Saturday morning.


But you can't.

[Anthony Marsh]

How about if you actually document them first, instead of posting crap?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5016d814....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

It would be impossible to correctly refute this in a censored forum.

Correctly, and accurately. The Warren Commission showed *NO* concern
whatsoever for evidence destruction.

>This thread was about Lane's attack on the WC.

Of course, the thread has been hijacked from the open forum - and many
responses can only be seen in the open forum.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2012 3:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2012 21:16:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2012 9:13 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 27 Jul 2012 23:06:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2012 7:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission accepted
>>>>>> drawings as evidence, despite knowing that they were inferior to the photographs
>>>>>> & X-rays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of resistance from the Kennedy family.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Earl Warren personally made the decision to not use the autopsy photos.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The decision not to press the Kennedy family.
>>
>> He made the decision the instant he saw the photographs.
>>
>
> And you know that how?
>
> Oh, I know! You have ESP. You can know all kinds of things without
> any evidence.
>

Fine, admit that you haven't seen the memo.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The bypassing of relevant testimony and the destruction of hard evidence were
>>>>>> nowhere more apparent than in the matter of the wounds suffered by the President
>>>>>> and Governor Connally. Mrs. Kennedy's testimony about the wounds was deleted,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For reasons of taste. We now know exactly what she said, and none of
>>>>> it is conspiracy evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that true for every cover-up?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow your brain kicked out of gear here.
>>>
>>> If it isn't "conspiracy evidence," it didn't need to be covered up.
>>>
>>> Nothing in Jackie's testimony is conspiracy evidence.
>>>
>>
>> There might be a clue that some people think indicates conspiracy such
>> as where the wound was. Not in the front, in the back.
>>
>
> But she doesn't say that. She says "from the back," which is not the
> same thing as "in the back of the head."
>

I did not quote. I said what some conspiracy believers might interpret
it as meaning. Just as Lifton interpreted the Humes comment as meaning
there was surgery to the head after the body left Dallas.

How can Lane attack the WC for what Humes did before they existed? You
are being intentionally silly.

>
>>>
>>> And I'm not aware of any law that says it's obstruction of justice for
>>> a pathologist to recopy blood spattered notes.
>>>
>>
>> But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>> world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>> washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>>
>
> The "burned autopsy report" is an ARRB thing, probably the result of
> confusion over "burned notes" and "burned draft autopsy report."
>

They didn't say "burned autopsy report." I did.



Humes ARRB 1999

"Q Could you explain or describe briefly the process that you
went through in drafting the autopsy protocol? So explain the number of
drafts that you wrote, for example.
A The decision was made somebody had to take responsibility to
write it. We couldn't do it as a troika. So I took the notes home with
me, these, I presume, and the notes that I had made, some of which I had
made were stained with the President's blood. I wrote a little bit about
this in that AMA article. Around that time, we had in the government
what was called the People to People Program, and the Navy Medical
Department's part of that was to bring medical officers from foreign
countries to the United States to teach them how the Navy Medical
Department functions with the Marine Corps,with the submarines and so
forth. These people
would be in Washington for 10 weeks. Five weeks they would
visit activities in the metropolitan Washington area, and five weeks
they would go on field trips. They would go to New London, Connecticut.
They'd go to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. They'd go to Pensacola,
Florida, all kind of places, Great Lakes Naval Training Center. I
occasionally was asked to be an escort for these people. There'd be 18
to 20, 25 doctors from foreign countries. Sometimes we had Greeks and
Turks at the same time, for instance. They weren't always the greatest
plans in the world, I tell you. But you would escort these guys around.
You'd get them on airplanes. You'd get them in buses. It was a real--it
was real interesting.

On one trip, we took them to Pittsburgh to show them industrial
medicine at steel mills and the medical department of a steel mill. We
took them to Detroit and took them to the Ford Motor Company so they
could see how the medical department of a large car company functioned.
While there this particular trip, we took them to Greenfield
Village. I don't know if any of you have been to Greenfield Village.
It's a very fascinating place where Henry Ford acquired all sorts of
buildings and structures from around the United States, and in Europe,
to some extent, and had them physically moved to Detroit. For instance,
Edison's Menlo Park Laboratory was totally taken apart and brought to
Greenfield Village, including the trash pile that was in the back yard.
Also in Greenfield Village, there is an old Illinois courthouse
where Lincoln used to preside when he was circuit-riding judge. And in
that courthouse was a chair that was alleged to be the chair in which
Lincoln sat when he was assassinated in Ford's Theater. And the docent,
in describing this chair, proudly spoke that here on the back of the
chair is the stain of the President's blood. The bullet went through his
head. I thought this was the most macabre thing I ever saw in my life.
It just made a terrible impression on me."


[Note that is has apparently been known since the trial of the
Lincoln Conspirators that the stain on the chair is in fact merely
hair-dressing]

"And when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this
document that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these
documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going to
get them."

[The 'documents' were in fact due to be handed over to Admiral
George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician, at the White House, not
the local freak show or a passing circus. Humes is asking us us to
believe that he really thought Burkley, & by implication the Kennedy
family themselves, were not to be trusted with this'bloodstained'
material. This despite the fact that Humes later announces that he
delivered JFK's brain to Burkley. And despite the fact that he did not
destroy the Boswell 'face sheet'. In my opinion this yarn is simply a
transparent lie.]

" So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my longhand
of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the
original notes in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from
ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And
there's been a lot of flack about this, that they're all part of a big
conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I
was involved. Ludicrous. That is what I did."

[Humes 'longhand copy' is actually rough draft of the autopsy
protocol itself.]

Q When you made reference to the notes that you copied out,
were you referring to the document that's marked Exhibit 2, or is that
something different?

A Now, this is the product of--yeah. It's the product of those
notes.

Q The question would be whether there were notes that you
copied down as one document and then you used the notes in order to
draft the document that's in your hand.

A The only thing that was retained was this.

Q Exhibit 2?[The handwritten draft of the autopsy report]

A Right.

Q Now, I presume that the notes that you took during the
autopsy did not resemble in any way the document that you have in your
hand now, Exhibit 2.

A Well, they did, yes. I mean, I didn't dream this up out of
whole cloth.

Q Certainly I understand the content, but I'm just referring to
the text that is written in Exhibit 2 tracks reasonably closely the
language of the final report. And what I'm interested in is what the two
to three pages of notes looked like.

A I can't recall. I mean, I--they would have been my shorthand
version of what you're looking at here, basically, in my own shorthand
manner, whatever it may have been.

[!]

Q You would agree, I assume, that the document you're holding
in your hand, Exhibit 2, is a basically completed autopsy protocol that
tracks the language of the final autopsy protocol that's Exhibit 1?

A Yes.

Q And I assume that the notes that you made while you were at
Bethesda during the autopsy were not written in sentence and paragraph form.

A No. They were shorthand.

Q So what kinds of things, then, were written on it? Measurements?

A Measurements, yeah, sure. Primarily measurements. That's
where these measurements came from.

[see where the measurements actually came from]

Q So when you drafted--well, first, was there any other draft
of the autopsy protocol other than the one that you're holding in your
hand now--

A No.

[compare with his WC testimony:

"In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday,
November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and
of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in
the fireplace of my recreation room." Humes is tied in knots by this time.]

Q --Exhibit 2?

A No. There was not. [see above]

Q So when you wrote down the information-- well, when you were
drafting what is now Exhibit 2, would it be fair to say that you had in
your hand two or three pages, approximately--

A Right.

Q --of handwritten notes--

A And I converted the shorthand information there to that document.

Q When you say "that document," you're referring to Exhibit 2?

A Yes, exactly.

Q Was there any information that was contained on the
handwritten notes that was not included in the document that's now
Exhibit 2--

A I don't believe so.

Q Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that
contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes
that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?

A No.

Q Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1
in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?

A Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave
these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.

Q Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood
being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?

A I can't recall, to tell you the truth.

[So much for the 'terrible impression' bloodstained artifacts
are supposed to have had on poor squeamish Dr. Humes.]

Q Do you see any inconsistency at all between destroying some
handwritten notes that contained blood on them but preserving other
handwritten notes that also had blood on them?

A Well, only that the others were of my own making. I
didn't--wouldn't have the habit of destroying something someone else
prepared. That's the only difference that I can conceive of. I don't
know where these went. I don't know if they went back to J or where they
went. I have no idea. I certainly didn't keep them. I kept nothing, as a
matter of fact.

[This again presupposes that each autopsist had his own private
& personal set of notes. Boswell's existing notes were certainly not
made by Boswell alone.]

Q I'd like to show you the testimony that you offered before
the Warren Commission. This is in Exhibit 11 to this deposition. I'd
like you to take a look at pages 372 to the top of 373, and then I'll
ask you a question.

A All right.

Q I'll read that into that record while you're reading it
yourself. Mr. Specter asked the question: "And what do those consist
of?" The
question is referring to some notes. "Answer: In privacy of my
own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24, I made a draft of
this report, which I later revised and of which this represents the
revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my
recreation room." Do you see Mr. Specter's question and your answer?

A Yes.

Q Does that help refresh your recollection of what was burned
in your home?

[The fact that Humes has been perjuring himself is now out in
the open. Humes can't avoid it.]

A Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was
everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as
Exhibit--whatever it is.

Q My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of
the report that was burned or whether it was--

A I think it was--

Q --handwritten notes--

A It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.

[Ah! It was BOTH!!!!!!!]

Q Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being
the equivalent of draft of the report?

A I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I
can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to
the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was
destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes
or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else
to remain, period.
This business, I don't know when J got that back or what.

[J never did get it back. It ended up as a Warren Commision
exhibit.]

Q When you say "this business," you're referring to Exhibit 1?

A Exhibit 1, right.

Q Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the
HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell-- I'll read this into the record. It's
from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.

"Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy
report at what time?"

"Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn't write the
report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the
report, which I began about 11 o'clock in the evening of Saturday
November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in
the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning of
Sunday, the 24th."


"Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or
records at that point as to the exact location of
the -

"Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the
autopsy room, which I copied."

Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so
that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but
still notes rather than a draft report?

A Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and
then I destroyed the first draft and the notes.

Q So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned:
one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?

A Right.

Q Is that correct?

A That's right. So that the only thing remaining was the one
that you have.

Q Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

A I don't recall. I don't know. There was no reason--see, we're
splitting hairs here,......

[This must have been about the most uncomfortable moment of
Humes hours at the ARRB]


.....and
I'll tell you, it's getting to me a little bit, as you may be
able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to
whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I
burned everything else. Now, why I didn't burn the thing that J wrote, I
have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the
notes or what, I don't know. There was nothing left when I got finished
with it, in any event, but the thingmthat you now have, period.

Q Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related
to the autopsy that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what
the exact circumstances--

A I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as
an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that
hard to understand?

Q When I first asked the question, you explained that the
reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the
President on it.

A Right.

Q The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of--

A Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know...

[Humes in exasperation may finally be telling the truth here.
He had no other notes to burn.]

......... I can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I
apologize for that. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't
want anything to remain that some squirrel ........

[The 'squirrel' being Admiral Burkley, by implication]


.......would grab on and make whatever use that they might.
Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don't know. But it
doesn't make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone.
Nobody else's.

Q Did you talk to anyone about your decision to--

A No, absolutely not. No. It was my own materials. Why--I don't
feel a need to talk to anybody about it.

Q Did the original notes that you created have any information
with respect to the estimated angle in which the bullet struck the
President?

A Nothing different than what's in the final version.

Q Did the original notes that you took identify the location of
the posterior thorax entrance wound with respect to which of the
vertebra of the President the wound was closest to?

A No. The measurements were taken from bony landmarks. As I
recall, one was a mastoid process, the bottom of the--behind the ear,
and the other was a midline of the vertebral column, not how many
vertebrae down it was. So the up-and-down measurement would be the
distance from the mastoid process down.

Q When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process,
was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed
body landmark?

A Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're
really in trouble if it does.

Q Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with
respect to the thoracic cavity?

A It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it
respected to.

Q Well, if your head turns to the right or to the left, does
the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to--

A Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly. Are we
getting into a big debate as to whether I did anything properly here or
not? It's not a debate I want to get involved in."



So, again for the newbies, explain how Humes washed his hands and went
home and wrote the first autopsy report and got blood all over it.

> I'll go with the earlier evidence.
>

You can't; he burned it.

>
>>> You guys just spew, with no legal basis.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider also the shirt worn by Governor Connally on the
>>>>>> day he was shot. Although it was torn in several places and was therefore useful
>>>>>> only as evidence, before it could be examined by the Commission or the FBI it
>>>>>> was 'cleaned and pressed', as were the Governor's jacket and trousers. Who
>>>>>> cleaned the shirt and thereby mutilated the evidence? Commission counsel was
>>>>>> informed by an FBI expert that the shirt's value as evidence had been destroyed,
>>>>>> but he merely went on to another matter. His interest - much less his wrath -
>>>>>> had not been engaged. The Commission showed itself equally benign:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what good would "wrath" have done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry Gonzales was responsible for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is no real dispute about Connally's wounds.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes there is, because certain WC defenders lie about the back wound.
>>>> And some even lie about a fragment in the thigh bone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the HSCA lied?
>>>
>>
>> The HSCA did not say that the fragment was in the thigh bone.
>> Certain people here do.
>>
>
>
> I know of no lone assassin theorist who says the fragment in in the
> thigh bone.
>

I did not name names. You won't allow me to name names.

> That's a *buff* factoid.
>
>
>
>>> Of course you believe that. You believe any testimony that you find
>>> inconvenient is a lie.
>>>
>>
>> Which testimony?
>>
>
> Any. You think the HSCA FPP was a bunch of liars, don't you?
>

Not all. Some were just mistaken and then learned.
Some were leaders of the cover-up.
Such as LOQUVAM, who said, "I don't think this belongs in the damn record."

That something is wrong is further confirmed by the fact that the most
visible supporters of the HSCA FPP's conclusions--Dr. Baden and
single-assassin theorist John McAdams--still refuse to admit what is
obvious--that their conclusions suggest the fragment was a slice from the
middle of the bullet. Instead, Dr. Baden, in a high-profile appearance at
the 2003 Wecht Conference, claimed that the fragment simply "rubbed off"
the open base of the bullet. Huh? Well, at least this spurious
explanation, which is in direct opposition to the findings of Baden's
Pathology Panel, by the way, acknowledged that the fragment was not a
slice incorporating both jacket and lead. Meanwhile, McAdams, apparently
unable to process that the base of the bullet was found intact in the
front section of the limousine, claimed (in a September 17, 2010 post on
the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup) that the fragment "was almost
certainly sheared off the base of the bullet." My God! What smoke!

More nonsense. Only YOU are understandably confused about everything.
And who again was it who said the scar was VERTICAL when we now know it
was horizontally elongated? Got any hints??

> And either way, it indicates a tumbling bullet.
>

Nonsense. You think the wound on JFK's head was exactly that same length
and yet you don't claim that was caused by a tumbling bullet.
You are the chief of the Hypocrites.

>
>
>> Again, not allowed to mention the names to protect the guilty.
>>
>
> Again, your "liar! liar!" rhetoric does you no good. It's just not
> possible to have as many liars in the world as you think.
>

It is when you protect them, just as you claimed that George Bush was not
lying. So, tell everyone, did you ever find those nuclear weapons you said
Saddam Hussein had?

[John McAdams]

On 30 Jul 2012 20:09:52 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <5016d814....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>>>
>>>

>>>There might be a clue that some people think indicates conspiracy such
>>>as where the wound was. Not in the front, in the back.
>>>
>>
>>But she doesn't say that. She says "from the back," which is not the
>>same thing as "in the back of the head."
>
>
>It would be impossible to correctly refute this in a censored forum.
>

Translation: you can't refute what I said with a resonable argument,
so you have to retreat to "liar! Liar!"

>>>
>>>I never blamed the WC for Humes burning the autopsy report, so why are
>>>you accusing me of doing that? You just need to make up things to accuse
>>>me of doing?
>>>
>>
>>Lane attacked the WC for that.
>
>
>Correctly, and accurately. The Warren Commission showed *NO* concern
>whatsoever for evidence destruction.
>

What the hell would "concern" mean?

They could not make the burned notes come back.

>
>
>>This thread was about Lane's attack on the WC.
>
>
>Of course, the thread has been hijacked from the open forum - and many
>responses can only be seen in the open forum.
>

The reasonable responses are, of course, seen here.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

Tony thinks he can get away with dumping a bunch of text in a post and
nobody will call him on it.

See below:

>>>>
>>>
>>> But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>>> world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>>> washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>>>
>>
>> The "burned autopsy report" is an ARRB thing, probably the result of
>> confusion over "burned notes" and "burned draft autopsy report."
>>
>
>They didn't say "burned autopsy report." I did.
>
>
>
> Humes ARRB 1999
>

Note: ARRB.

> "Q Could you explain or describe briefly the process that you
>went through in drafting the autopsy protocol? So explain the number of
>drafts that you wrote, for example.
> A The decision was made somebody had to take responsibility to
>write it. We couldn't do it as a troika. So I took the notes home with
>me, these, I presume, and the notes that I had made, some of which I had
>made were stained with the President's blood.

The notes were stained with blood.

What asshole wrote the stuff in brackets?

There is no reason to doubt that the docent said that, although he or
she was wrong.

> "And when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this
>document that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these
>documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going to
>get them."
>
> [The 'documents' were in fact due to be handed over to Admiral
>George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician, at the White House, not
>the local freak show or a passing circus. Humes is asking us us to
>believe that he really thought Burkley, & by implication the Kennedy
>family themselves, were not to be trusted with this'bloodstained'
>material. This despite the fact that Humes later announces that he
>delivered JFK's brain to Burkley. And despite the fact that he did not
>destroy the Boswell 'face sheet'. In my opinion this yarn is simply a
>transparent lie.]
>

Again, what asshole wrote the stuff arguing with Humes.

Of *course* Humes had reason to believe that the bloodstained notes
would end up on display somewhere.

> " So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my longhand
>of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the
>original notes

Note, burned the notes.

>in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from
>ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And
>there's been a lot of flack about this, that they're all part of a big
>conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I
>was involved. Ludicrous. That is what I did."
>
> [Humes 'longhand copy' is actually rough draft of the autopsy
>protocol itself.]
>

Again, the asshole pipes up.

That's not what Humes said.

> Q When you made reference to the notes that you copied out,
>were you referring to the document that's marked Exhibit 2, or is that
>something different?
>
> A Now, this is the product of--yeah. It's the product of those
>notes.
>

The *product* of the notes.

So he did *not* burn a "draft" of the autopsy protocol.

> [compare with his WC testimony:
>
> "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday,
>November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and
>of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in
>the fireplace of my recreation room." Humes is tied in knots by this time.]
>

This is just milking an imprecision of language.

> Q --Exhibit 2?
>
> A No. There was not. [see above]
>
> Q So when you wrote down the information-- well, when you were
>drafting what is now Exhibit 2, would it be fair to say that you had in
>your hand two or three pages, approximately--
>
> A Right.
>
> Q --of handwritten notes--
>
> A And I converted the shorthand information there to that document.
>
> Q When you say "that document," you're referring to Exhibit 2?
>
> A Yes, exactly.
>
> Q Was there any information that was contained on the
>handwritten notes that was not included in the document that's now
>Exhibit 2--
>
> A I don't believe so.
>
> Q Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that
>contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes
>that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
>
> A No.
>

Huh? Of course he didn't make a copy of a copy.

> Q Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1
>in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
>
> A Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave
>these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.
>
> Q Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood
>being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?
>
> A I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
>
> [So much for the 'terrible impression' bloodstained artifacts
>are supposed to have had on poor squeamish Dr. Humes.]
>

The asshole speaks up again.

Why did you post the comments of the asshole?

Humes wasn't absolutely clear, maybe not in his own mind, but not in
the way he spoke.

> A Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was
>everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as
>Exhibit--whatever it is.
>
> Q My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of
>the report that was burned or whether it was--
>
> A I think it was--
>
> Q --handwritten notes--
>
> A It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
>
> [Ah! It was BOTH!!!!!!!]
>

This is the first time he has said that, and it contradicts all his
testimony so far.

> Q Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being
>the equivalent of draft of the report?
>
> A I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I
>can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to
>the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was
>destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes
>or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else
>to remain, period.

Note, Humes does *not* say he burned both the notes and a draft.

He's impatient with attempts to put words in his mouth.

Any sensible person, but obviously not a buff, would note that he's
vague and unsure and impatient with the line of questioning.

The ARRB guy is badgering the witness.

>
> .....and
> I'll tell you, it's getting to me a little bit, as you may be
>able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to
>whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I
>burned everything else. Now, why I didn't burn the thing that J wrote, I
>have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the
>notes or what, I don't know. There was nothing left when I got finished
>with it, in any event, but the thingmthat you now have, period.

Note he *doesn't know.*

>
> Q Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related
>to the autopsy that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what
>the exact circumstances--
>
> A I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as
>an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that
>hard to understand?
>
> Q When I first asked the question, you explained that the
>reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the
>President on it.
>
> A Right.
>
> Q The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of--
>
> A Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
>was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know...

He doesn't know.

>
> [Humes in exasperation may finally be telling the truth here.
>He had no other notes to burn.]
>

The asshole speaks again.

Humes clearly doesn't remember very well.

> ......... I can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I
>apologize for that. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't
>want anything to remain that some squirrel ........
>
> [The 'squirrel' being Admiral Burkley, by implication]
>
>

Again, he can't recall.

So the buffs latch onto something to use as a talking point, and
ignore the entire thrust of the testimony.

>>
>> Any. You think the HSCA FPP was a bunch of liars, don't you?
>>
>
>Not all. Some were just mistaken and then learned.
>Some were leaders of the cover-up.
>Such as LOQUVAM, who said, "I don't think this belongs in the damn record."
>

He didn't want the autopsists embarrassed by their misplacement of the
entrance wound in the back of the head.

>That something is wrong is further confirmed by the fact that the most
>visible supporters of the HSCA FPP's conclusions--Dr. Baden and
>single-assassin theorist John McAdams--still refuse to admit what is
>obvious--that their conclusions suggest the fragment was a slice from the
>middle of the bullet.

Absurd.

The fact that Frazier of the FBI said a piece found in the limo was a
portion of the "base" of the bullet does not preclude a sliver sheared
off the bottom.

>Instead, Dr. Baden, in a high-profile appearance at
>the 2003 Wecht Conference, claimed that the fragment simply "rubbed off"
>the open base of the bullet. Huh? Well, at least this spurious
>explanation, which is in direct opposition to the findings of Baden's
>Pathology Panel,

No it's not. Where the hell did this come from?

>by the way, acknowledged that the fragment was not a
>slice incorporating both jacket and lead. Meanwhile, McAdams, apparently
>unable to process that the base of the bullet was found intact in the
>front section of the limousine, claimed (in a September 17, 2010 post on
>the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup) that the fragment "was almost
>certainly sheared off the base of the bullet." My God! What smoke!
>

Nothing about that fragment precludes it being sheared off.

>>
>> That's not a lie. That's an understandable confusion between the
>> *debribed* state of the wound, and the wound as Shaw first saw it.
>>
>
>More nonsense. Only YOU are understandably confused about everything.
>And who again was it who said the scar was VERTICAL when we now know it
>was horizontally elongated? Got any hints??
>

It doesn't matter.

The bullet was tumbling.

>> And either way, it indicates a tumbling bullet.
>>
>
>Nonsense. You think the wound on JFK's head was exactly that same length
>and yet you don't claim that was caused by a tumbling bullet.
>You are the chief of the Hypocrites.
>

It entered the skull on the slant. Not like the back wound.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

On Jul 27, 6:59 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2012 06:33:02 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
> More lies, and intentionally misleading statements from Lane.
>

[....]

Concerning this point...

> > [Mark Lane quoting the Warren Report]:
> >'"Because the shirt had been laundered, there were insufficient characteristics

> >for the expert examiner to form a conclusive opinion on the direction or nature
> >of the object causing the holes.''
>
> >The FBI's expert examiner referred to by the Commission actually went beyond the
> >Commission's summary of his remarks in describing what had happened to the
> >shirt. He said that no valuable characteristics had survived.
>

> >Q. Were there sufficient characteristics observable to formulate a conclusion as
> >to the cause and direction of that hole?
> >FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier: No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you
> >could base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet and
> >if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was.
>
> >The Commission cited that very page of the FBI expert's testimony as proof that
> >the 'rear hole could have been caused by the entrance of a 6.5-millimeter bullet
> >and the front hole by the exit of such a bullet. The word 'could' accommodates
> >many possibilities, but the truth is that Frazier told Commission counsel that
> >the laundering of the shirt and the cleaning and pressing of the jacket before
> >an examination took place effectively prevented him from reaching any
> >conclusions about the nature of the tears."

The WC "cited that very page" because a more complete quote from
"that very page" says...

QUOTE:

Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics observable to

formulate a conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you could

base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet and
if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was.

Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5-mm. bullet coming from
the rear of the wearer toward his front?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

UNQUOTE

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0037b.htm

IOW, Frazier said what the WR claimed he said.

This reminds me of Lane's editing of Ruby's testimony:

QUOTE:

RUBY [to Earl Warren]: But you are the only
one that can save me. I think you can.

WARREN: Yes?

RUBY: But by delaying minutes, you lose the
chance. And all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all.

UNQUOTE [RTJ, 245]

Lane left out the very next words out of Ruby's mouth:
"There was no conspiracy."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0111b.htm
(bottom of page)


Jean

[Ben Holmes]

In article <9fbe18l84jfhna5ke...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 30 Jul 2012 20:09:52 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <5016d814....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There might be a clue that some people think indicates conspiracy such
>>>>as where the wound was. Not in the front, in the back.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But she doesn't say that. She says "from the back," which is not the
>>>same thing as "in the back of the head."
>>
>>
>>It would be impossible to correctly refute this in a censored forum.
>>
>
>Translation: you can't refute what I said with a resonable argument,
>so you have to retreat to "liar! Liar!"

You presume absolute honesty in this forum.

>>>>I never blamed the WC for Humes burning the autopsy report, so why are
>>>>you accusing me of doing that? You just need to make up things to accuse
>>>>me of doing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Lane attacked the WC for that.
>>
>>
>>Correctly, and accurately. The Warren Commission showed *NO* concern
>>whatsoever for evidence destruction.
>>
>
>What the hell would "concern" mean?
>
>They could not make the burned notes come back.

Mark Lane attacked the Warren Commission correctly, and accurately. The

Warren Commission showed *NO* concern whatsoever for evidence destruction.

>>>This thread was about Lane's attack on the WC.
>>
>>
>>Of course, the thread has been hijacked from the open forum - and many
>>responses can only be seen in the open forum.
>>
>
>The reasonable responses are, of course, seen here.

The true ones can be found in the open forum, where they cannot be
censored.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why not just look at the damn jacket instead of playing word games?
Why did the WC hide Frazier's notes and measurements about the jacket
which John Hunt found buried in the National Archives? Not you!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2012 9:33 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> Tony thinks he can get away with dumping a bunch of text in a post and
> nobody will call him on it.
>
> See below:
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>>>> world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>>>> washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "burned autopsy report" is an ARRB thing, probably the result of
>>> confusion over "burned notes" and "burned draft autopsy report."
>>>
>>
>> They didn't say "burned autopsy report." I did.
>>
>>
>>
>> Humes ARRB 1999
>>
>
> Note: ARRB.
>
>> "Q Could you explain or describe briefly the process that you
>> went through in drafting the autopsy protocol? So explain the number of
>> drafts that you wrote, for example.
>> A The decision was made somebody had to take responsibility to
>> write it. We couldn't do it as a troika. So I took the notes home with
>> me, these, I presume, and the notes that I had made, some of which I had
>> made were stained with the President's blood.
>
>
> The notes were stained with blood.
>

So what? Humes didn't destroy all the notes stained with blood. You can
still see the blood on the notes in evidence. Did the National Archives
make them a public exhibit as Humes feared?

You still have not explained how Humes got blood on the first autopsy
report he wrote at home.

You don't know how to find the original quote using Google? Then try Bing.

> There is no reason to doubt that the docent said that, although he or
> she was wrong.
>
>
>> "And when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this
>> document that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these
>> documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going to
>> get them."
>>
>> [The 'documents' were in fact due to be handed over to Admiral
>> George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician, at the White House, not
>> the local freak show or a passing circus. Humes is asking us us to
>> believe that he really thought Burkley, & by implication the Kennedy
>> family themselves, were not to be trusted with this'bloodstained'
>> material. This despite the fact that Humes later announces that he
>> delivered JFK's brain to Burkley. And despite the fact that he did not
>> destroy the Boswell 'face sheet'. In my opinion this yarn is simply a
>> transparent lie.]
>>
>
> Again, what asshole wrote the stuff arguing with Humes.
>

Again, learn how to use a search engine some time.

> Of *course* Humes had reason to believe that the bloodstained notes
> would end up on display somewhere.
>

Yeah, right? And have they? No.
Same thing with the autopsy photos. He was confident that the public
would never see them and see his lies.

>
>> " So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my longhand
>> of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the
>> original notes
>
> Note, burned the notes.

And the first autopsy report.

>
>> in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from
>> ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And
>> there's been a lot of flack about this, that they're all part of a big
>> conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I
>> was involved. Ludicrous. That is what I did."
>>
>> [Humes 'longhand copy' is actually rough draft of the autopsy
>> protocol itself.]
>>
>
> Again, the asshole pipes up.
>

He has to let people know the background story.

> That's not what Humes said.
>

Because Humes lied.

>
>> Q When you made reference to the notes that you copied out,
>> were you referring to the document that's marked Exhibit 2, or is that
>> something different?
>>
>> A Now, this is the product of--yeah. It's the product of those
>> notes.
>>
>
> The *product* of the notes.
>

Notes are the product of notes?
No, the autopsy report is the product of notes.

Perjury.

>
>
>> [compare with his WC testimony:
>>
>> "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday,
>> November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and
>> of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in
>> the fireplace of my recreation room." Humes is tied in knots by this time.]
>>
>
> This is just milking an imprecision of language.
>

Just pointing out the perjury.

>
>> Q --Exhibit 2?
>>
>> A No. There was not. [see above]
>>
>> Q So when you wrote down the information-- well, when you were
>> drafting what is now Exhibit 2, would it be fair to say that you had in
>> your hand two or three pages, approximately--
>>
>> A Right.
>>
>> Q --of handwritten notes--
>>
>> A And I converted the shorthand information there to that document.
>>
>> Q When you say "that document," you're referring to Exhibit 2?
>>
>> A Yes, exactly.
>>
>> Q Was there any information that was contained on the
>> handwritten notes that was not included in the document that's now
>> Exhibit 2--
>>
>> A I don't believe so.
>>
>> Q Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that
>> contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes
>> that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
>>
>> A No.
>>
>
> Huh? Of course he didn't make a copy of a copy.
>

A copy of the original notes.

>
>> Q Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1
>> in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
>>
>> A Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave
>> these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.
>>
>> Q Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood
>> being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?
>>
>> A I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
>>
>> [So much for the 'terrible impression' bloodstained artifacts
>> are supposed to have had on poor squeamish Dr. Humes.]
>>
>
> The asshole speaks up again.

To point out the absurdity of the Humes lies.

Because it's part of the article and it helps make clear how Humes lied.

> Humes wasn't absolutely clear, maybe not in his own mind, but not in
> the way he spoke.
>

Ok, so instead of admitting that Humes lied you would rather say that he
was confused. Fine with me.

>
>> A Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was
>> everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as
>> Exhibit--whatever it is.
>>
>> Q My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of
>> the report that was burned or whether it was--
>>
>> A I think it was--
>>
>> Q --handwritten notes--
>>
>> A It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
>>
>> [Ah! It was BOTH!!!!!!!]
>>
>
> This is the first time he has said that, and it contradicts all his
> testimony so far.
>

Exactly. He's admitting that he lied earlier and you keep denying that he
lied even after this shows that he admitted that he lied. That's a
magnificent type of loyalty that you possess. Just like when you guys kept
denying that Nixon knew about Watergate the day after he admitted it.

>
>> Q Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being
>> the equivalent of draft of the report?
>>
>> A I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I
>> can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to
>> the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was
>> destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes
>> or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else
>> to remain, period.
>
> Note, Humes does *not* say he burned both the notes and a draft.
>
> He's impatient with attempts to put words in his mouth.

He's squirming under intense questioning, maybe for the first time under
oath.

He just admitted that the only thing he saved was the completed version,
which means he burned the draft, which you just denied. You claimed he
only burned NOTES. Keep repeating the word NOTES for another 50 years and
see if anyone will believe you.

>>
>> Q Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related
>> to the autopsy that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what
>> the exact circumstances--
>>
>> A I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as
>> an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that
>> hard to understand?
>>
>> Q When I first asked the question, you explained that the
>> reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the
>> President on it.
>>
>> A Right.
>>
>> Q The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of--
>>
>> A Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
>> was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know...
>
> He doesn't know.
>

He admits right there that the draft report would not have had blood on
it. And you couldn't explain how it COULD possibly have the President's
blood on it when he wrote it at home the next day.

You need to change your cover-up strategy just as Nixon did. Just admit
that he burned the first autopsy report, but explain that he did that ONLY
because he had misspelled a medical term and did not want to mislead
anyone. He wrote Cerebral when he meant Cerebellar. End of controversy.
Try it. I bet you can get away with it. No royalties necessary.

>
>>
>> [Humes in exasperation may finally be telling the truth here.
>> He had no other notes to burn.]
>>
>
> The asshole speaks again.
>
> Humes clearly doesn't remember very well.
>
>
>> ......... I can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I
>> apologize for that. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't
>> want anything to remain that some squirrel ........
>>
>> [The 'squirrel' being Admiral Burkley, by implication]
>>
>>
>
> Again, he can't recall.
>
> So the buffs latch onto something to use as a talking point, and
> ignore the entire thrust of the testimony.
>
>>>
>>> Any. You think the HSCA FPP was a bunch of liars, don't you?
>>>
>>
>> Not all. Some were just mistaken and then learned.
>> Some were leaders of the cover-up.
>> Such as LOQUVAM, who said, "I don't think this belongs in the damn record."
>>
>
> He didn't want the autopsists embarrassed by their misplacement of the
> entrance wound in the back of the head.
>
>
>> That something is wrong is further confirmed by the fact that the most
>> visible supporters of the HSCA FPP's conclusions--Dr. Baden and
>> single-assassin theorist John McAdams--still refuse to admit what is
>> obvious--that their conclusions suggest the fragment was a slice from the
>> middle of the bullet.
>
> Absurd.
>

I also don't agree with the author's theory. It is not a slice.

> The fact that Frazier of the FBI said a piece found in the limo was a
> portion of the "base" of the bullet does not preclude a sliver sheared
> off the bottom.
>

Yes, it does. The base of the jacket is intact. Nothing was sliced off.
How if you want to talk about the LEAD CORE being squeezed out of the base
fragment and then a piece sliced off, it would be 4.5 mm wide, not 6.5 mm
wide. The 6.5 mm object is a hoax designed to frame Oswald by a doctor who
knows nothing about M-C bullets.

>
>> Instead, Dr. Baden, in a high-profile appearance at
>> the 2003 Wecht Conference, claimed that the fragment simply "rubbed off"
>> the open base of the bullet. Huh? Well, at least this spurious
>> explanation, which is in direct opposition to the findings of Baden's
>> Pathology Panel,
>
> No it's not. Where the hell did this come from?
>

Jeez, why don't you just watch the Wecht conference?

>
>> by the way, acknowledged that the fragment was not a
>> slice incorporating both jacket and lead. Meanwhile, McAdams, apparently
>> unable to process that the base of the bullet was found intact in the
>> front section of the limousine, claimed (in a September 17, 2010 post on
>> the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup) that the fragment "was almost
>> certainly sheared off the base of the bullet." My God! What smoke!
>>
>
> Nothing about that fragment precludes it being sheared off.
>

It is physically impossible.

>
>>>
>>> That's not a lie. That's an understandable confusion between the
>>> *debribed* state of the wound, and the wound as Shaw first saw it.
>>>
>>
>> More nonsense. Only YOU are understandably confused about everything.
>> And who again was it who said the scar was VERTICAL when we now know it
>> was horizontally elongated? Got any hints??
>>
>
> It doesn't matter.
>
> The bullet was tumbling.

Oh, so now when you're stuck for an answer you claim the bullet was
tumbling?

And answer the damn question. What idiot said the scar was vertical?

>
>
>>> And either way, it indicates a tumbling bullet.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense. You think the wound on JFK's head was exactly that same length
>> and yet you don't claim that was caused by a tumbling bullet.
>> You are the chief of the Hypocrites.
>>
>
> It entered the skull on the slant. Not like the back wound.
>

The back wound was at a slant. So finally you admit that an elongated
wound can be caused by something other than a tumbling bullet. You've come
a long way in 50 years.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2012 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2012 20:09:52 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <5016d814....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There might be a clue that some people think indicates conspiracy such
>>>> as where the wound was. Not in the front, in the back.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But she doesn't say that. She says "from the back," which is not the
>>> same thing as "in the back of the head."
>>
>>
>> It would be impossible to correctly refute this in a censored forum.
>>
>
> Translation: you can't refute what I said with a resonable argument,
> so you have to retreat to "liar! Liar!"
>
>>>>
>>>> I never blamed the WC for Humes burning the autopsy report, so why are
>>>> you accusing me of doing that? You just need to make up things to accuse
>>>> me of doing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lane attacked the WC for that.
>>
>>
>> Correctly, and accurately. The Warren Commission showed *NO* concern
>> whatsoever for evidence destruction.
>>
>
> What the hell would "concern" mean?
>

Jeez, maybe he's no naive that means criticize the autopsy doctors the way
the HSCA did. Or at least question them under oath more aggressively. Or
admit in the report that evidence had been destroyed. Something to show
some backbone.

Look at how many years it took for you to find out that Humes burned the
notes.

> They could not make the burned notes come back.
>

Just as the ARRB could not make the destroyed autopsy photos come back?

>
>>
>>
>>> This thread was about Lane's attack on the WC.
>>
>>
>> Of course, the thread has been hijacked from the open forum - and many
>> responses can only be seen in the open forum.
>>
>
> The reasonable responses are, of course, seen here.
>

The cover-up continues.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, July 30, 2012 8:18:01 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 3:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>

> > Any. You think the HSCA FPP was a bunch of liars, don't you?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not all. Some were just mistaken and then learned.
>
> Some were leaders of the cover-up.
>
> Such as LOQUVAM, who said, "I don't think this belongs in the damn record."
>
>

Lol. Please quote what he said directly after that. Basically, his was a
plea to the panel to shut the ***k up and let the witness talk.

He was saying (to the other members of the panel) your conjecture about
this doesn't belong in the record, they'll be time for us to deliberate
after we've heard from the witnesses, so shut up and let's hear from the
damn witnesses.

Some coverup!

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/31/2012 4:36 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2012 8:18:01 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 3:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>
>>> Any. You think the HSCA FPP was a bunch of liars, don't you?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not all. Some were just mistaken and then learned.
>>
>> Some were leaders of the cover-up.
>>
>> Such as LOQUVAM, who said, "I don't think this belongs in the damn record."
>>
>>
>
> Lol. Please quote what he said directly after that. Basically, his was a
> plea to the panel to shut the ***k up and let the witness talk.
>

No, he meant that they should not be discussing it for public perusal.

[John McAdams]

On 31 Jul 2012 16:06:43 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 7/30/2012 9:33 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> Tony thinks he can get away with dumping a bunch of text in a post and
>> nobody will call him on it.
>>
>> See below:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is not all he did. He burned the first autopsy report. How in the
>>>>> world could that possibly be blood stained unless he went home without
>>>>> washing up and his whole house was spattered with JFK's blood?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "burned autopsy report" is an ARRB thing, probably the result of
>>>> confusion over "burned notes" and "burned draft autopsy report."
>>>>
>>>
>>> They didn't say "burned autopsy report." I did.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Humes ARRB 1999
>>>
>>
>> Note: ARRB.
>>
>>> "Q Could you explain or describe briefly the process that you
>>> went through in drafting the autopsy protocol? So explain the number of
>>> drafts that you wrote, for example.
>>> A The decision was made somebody had to take responsibility to
>>> write it. We couldn't do it as a troika. So I took the notes home with
>>> me, these, I presume, and the notes that I had made, some of which I had
>>> made were stained with the President's blood.
>>
>>
>> The notes were stained with blood.
>>
>
>So what? Humes didn't destroy all the notes stained with blood. You can
>still see the blood on the notes in evidence. Did the National Archives
>make them a public exhibit as Humes feared?
>

The face sheet was not written by Humes, but Boswell. So Humes didn't
think he had a right to destroy it.

>You still have not explained how Humes got blood on the first autopsy
>report he wrote at home.
>

There was no "first autopsy report."

Try reading for comprehension. That was an ARRB thing, just the
result of bad questioning and Humes confusion about what he was being
asked.

>>>
>>> [Note that is has apparently been known since the trial of the
>>> Lincoln Conspirators that the stain on the chair is in fact merely
>>> hair-dressing]
>>>
>>
>> What asshole wrote the stuff in brackets?
>>
>
>You don't know how to find the original quote using Google? Then try Bing.
>

It's not worth the effort to ID some asshole who tries to impose his
own interpretation what what Humes said.

>
>> Of *course* Humes had reason to believe that the bloodstained notes
>> would end up on display somewhere.
>>
>
>Yeah, right? And have they? No.
>Same thing with the autopsy photos. He was confident that the public
>would never see them and see his lies.

The public *does* have accesss to the autopsy photos, admittedly only
via pirated copies.

And they show that Humes was telling the truth (at least so far as he
could tell).

>
>>
>>> " So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my longhand
>>> of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the
>>> original notes
>>
>> Note, burned the notes.
>
>And the first autopsy report.
>

No.

>>
>>> in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from
>>> ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And
>>> there's been a lot of flack about this, that they're all part of a big
>>> conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I
>>> was involved. Ludicrous. That is what I did."
>>>
>>> [Humes 'longhand copy' is actually rough draft of the autopsy
>>> protocol itself.]
>>>
>>
>> Again, the asshole pipes up.
>>
>
>He has to let people know the background story.
>

It's a "story" alright.

A piece of buff nonsense.

>> That's not what Humes said.
>>
>
>Because Humes lied.
>

You can't get your story stright, can you Tony.

You want to claim that Humes *said* that he burned a draft of the
autopsy report, and when I point out that that's not what he said, you
respond "he lied."

Get your story straight.

>>
>>> Q When you made reference to the notes that you copied out,
>>> were you referring to the document that's marked Exhibit 2, or is that
>>> something different?
>>>
>>> A Now, this is the product of--yeah. It's the product of those
>>> notes.
>>>
>>
>> The *product* of the notes.
>>
>
>Notes are the product of notes?

No, an autopsy report (the one in evidence) the product of notes.

>No, the autopsy report is the product of notes.
>

Right. Now you are getting it.

>>>
>>> Q So when you drafted--well, first, was there any other draft
>>> of the autopsy protocol other than the one that you're holding in your
>>> hand now--
>>>
>>> A No.
>>>
>>
>> So he did *not* burn a "draft" of the autopsy protocol.
>
>Perjury.
>

Tony, your mean spiritedness and hatred is out of bounds.

Get your story straight. You quote Humes with approval, and then when
I point out what he *really* said you call him a liar.

>>
>>
>>> [compare with his WC testimony:
>>>
>>> "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday,
>>> November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and
>>> of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in
>>> the fireplace of my recreation room." Humes is tied in knots by this time.]
>>>
>>
>> This is just milking an imprecision of language.
>>
>
>Just pointing out the perjury.
>

You need to get past the notion that everybody with testimony you
don't like is a liar.

>>
>>> Q --Exhibit 2?
>>>
>>> A No. There was not. [see above]
>>>
>>> Q So when you wrote down the information-- well, when you were
>>> drafting what is now Exhibit 2, would it be fair to say that you had in
>>> your hand two or three pages, approximately--
>>>
>>> A Right.
>>>
>>> Q --of handwritten notes--
>>>
>>> A And I converted the shorthand information there to that document.
>>>
>>> Q When you say "that document," you're referring to Exhibit 2?
>>>
>>> A Yes, exactly.
>>>
>>> Q Was there any information that was contained on the
>>> handwritten notes that was not included in the document that's now
>>> Exhibit 2--
>>>
>>> A I don't believe so.
>>>
>>> Q Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that
>>> contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes
>>> that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
>>>
>>> A No.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? Of course he didn't make a copy of a copy.
>>
>
>A copy of the original notes.
>

No "copy" that was different from the autopsy report in evidence.

>>
>>> Q Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1
>>> in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
>>>
>>> A Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave
>>> these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.
>>>
>>> Q Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood
>>> being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?
>>>
>>> A I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
>>>
>>> [So much for the 'terrible impression' bloodstained artifacts
>>> are supposed to have had on poor squeamish Dr. Humes.]
>>>
>>
>> The asshole speaks up again.
>
>To point out the absurdity of the Humes lies.
>

You are just like Holmes. It's all "liar! liar!"

No, it's some idiot trying to obscure that Humes really said.

>> Humes wasn't absolutely clear, maybe not in his own mind, but not in
>> the way he spoke.
>>
>
>Ok, so instead of admitting that Humes lied you would rather say that he
>was confused. Fine with me.
>

Witnesses *are* often confused -- at least in the real world, which is
not Tony's world.

But any confusion is compounded by bad and tendentious questioning.

>>
>>> A Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was
>>> everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as
>>> Exhibit--whatever it is.
>>>
>>> Q My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of
>>> the report that was burned or whether it was--
>>>
>>> A I think it was--
>>>
>>> Q --handwritten notes--
>>>
>>> A It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
>>>
>>> [Ah! It was BOTH!!!!!!!]
>>>
>>
>> This is the first time he has said that, and it contradicts all his
>> testimony so far.
>>
>
>Exactly. He's admitting that he lied earlier and you keep denying that he
>lied even after this shows that he admitted that he lied.

He hasn't admitted anything. He's trying to respond to incompetent
questioning.

>That's a
>magnificent type of loyalty that you possess. Just like when you guys kept
>denying that Nixon knew about Watergate the day after he admitted it.
>

Quite making up silly things. That's why a lot of people killfile
you.

>>
>>> Q Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being
>>> the equivalent of draft of the report?
>>>
>>> A I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I
>>> can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to
>>> the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was
>>> destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes
>>> or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else
>>> to remain, period.
>>
>> Note, Humes does *not* say he burned both the notes and a draft.
>>
>> He's impatient with attempts to put words in his mouth.
>
>He's squirming under intense questioning, maybe for the first time under
>oath.
>

He's having to deal with very poor questioning.

Only if you *assume* that there was a "draft," rather than notes.

>You claimed he
>only burned NOTES. Keep repeating the word NOTES for another 50 years and
>see if anyone will believe you.
>

Keep pushing this silly Horne stuff for 50 years, and see if anybody
thinks it anything but crackpot stuff.

Indeed, you won't have to wait 50 years. :-)

>>>
>>> Q Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related
>>> to the autopsy that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what
>>> the exact circumstances--
>>>
>>> A I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as
>>> an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that
>>> hard to understand?
>>>
>>> Q When I first asked the question, you explained that the
>>> reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the
>>> President on it.
>>>
>>> A Right.
>>>
>>> Q The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of--
>>>
>>> A Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
>>> was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know...
>>
>> He doesn't know.
>>
>
>He admits right there that the draft report would not have had blood on
>it. And you couldn't explain how it COULD possibly have the President's
>blood on it when he wrote it at home the next day.
>

You're not even reading his testimony. He says "whether I even did
that."

But you are insisting he did, with *only* his testimony as evidence.

>You need to change your cover-up strategy just as Nixon did. Just admit
>that he burned the first autopsy report, but explain that he did that ONLY
>because he had misspelled a medical term and did not want to mislead
>anyone. He wrote Cerebral when he meant Cerebellar. End of controversy.
>Try it. I bet you can get away with it. No royalties necessary.
>

Tony, you are *real* slow getting this.

There *was* no draft autopsy report that he burned. Just notes.

And you know that how?

>How if you want to talk about the LEAD CORE being squeezed out of the base
>fragment and then a piece sliced off, it would be 4.5 mm wide, not 6.5 mm
>wide. The 6.5 mm object is a hoax designed to frame Oswald by a doctor who
>knows nothing about M-C bullets.
>

Oh, a "hoax."

And Bush mounted the 9/11 attacks.

There is plenty in the medical record to convict Oswald besides the
6.5 mm. fragment.

The AP x-ray shows nasty fractures radiating from the entry in the
cowlick area.

Finck noted beveling on the inner table at the back of the skull.

And the photos of the back of the head (a stereo pair) show the
entrance wound in the cowlick.

You guys just can't pass up any opportunity to cry "fake!," even when
fakery would have made no sense.

>>
>>> Instead, Dr. Baden, in a high-profile appearance at
>>> the 2003 Wecht Conference, claimed that the fragment simply "rubbed off"
>>> the open base of the bullet. Huh? Well, at least this spurious
>>> explanation, which is in direct opposition to the findings of Baden's
>>> Pathology Panel,
>>
>> No it's not. Where the hell did this come from?
>>
>
>Jeez, why don't you just watch the Wecht conference?
>

You pretend not to understand me.

How was Baden's claim at odds with the HSCA?

>>
>>> by the way, acknowledged that the fragment was not a
>>> slice incorporating both jacket and lead. Meanwhile, McAdams, apparently
>>> unable to process that the base of the bullet was found intact in the
>>> front section of the limousine, claimed (in a September 17, 2010 post on
>>> the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup) that the fragment "was almost
>>> certainly sheared off the base of the bullet." My God! What smoke!
>>>
>>
>> Nothing about that fragment precludes it being sheared off.
>>
>
>It is physically impossible.
>

Says Tony Marsh, famous forensic pathologist.

>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not a lie. That's an understandable confusion between the
>>>> *debribed* state of the wound, and the wound as Shaw first saw it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More nonsense. Only YOU are understandably confused about everything.
>>> And who again was it who said the scar was VERTICAL when we now know it
>>> was horizontally elongated? Got any hints??
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter.
>>
>> The bullet was tumbling.
>
>Oh, so now when you're stuck for an answer you claim the bullet was
>tumbling?
>

That's what mattered. It means it hit something, almost certainly
Connally.

>And answer the damn question. What idiot said the scar was vertical?
>

I have no idea, and I don't care. It doesn't matter.

>>
>>
>>>> And either way, it indicates a tumbling bullet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. You think the wound on JFK's head was exactly that same length
>>> and yet you don't claim that was caused by a tumbling bullet.
>>> You are the chief of the Hypocrites.
>>>
>>
>> It entered the skull on the slant. Not like the back wound.
>>
>
>The back wound was at a slant. So finally you admit that an elongated
>wound can be caused by something other than a tumbling bullet. You've come
>a long way in 50 years.
>

Read the HSCA, will you.

The wound on Connally's back did not have an abrasion collar (which it
would if it entered on the slant) nor the undermining of the
contralateral margin.

Try taking the medical evidence seriously, Tony.

Just shouting "liar! liar!" at every expert who disagrees with you
won't cut it.

.John

[Anthony Marsh]

You are being absurd on purpose. Humes testified under oath that he
destroyed ALL the notes, his and the other doctors which were
bloodstained. So obviously he did not feel that he had to respect the
other doctors notes.
I said nothing about the face sheet.
But obviously his goal was not to destroy only and all the bloodstained
papers as he intentionally did not destroy the Boswell face sheet. He
needed that to refresh his memory.
Are you accusing Humes of perjury?

>
>> You still have not explained how Humes got blood on the first autopsy
>> report he wrote at home.
>>
>
> There was no "first autopsy report."
>
> Try reading for comprehension. That was an ARRB thing, just the
> result of bad questioning and Humes confusion about what he was being
> asked.

He admitted it. Maybe you could claim that he got tricked into admitting
it.

>
>>>>
>>>> [Note that is has apparently been known since the trial of the
>>>> Lincoln Conspirators that the stain on the chair is in fact merely
>>>> hair-dressing]
>>>>
>>>
>>> What asshole wrote the stuff in brackets?
>>>
>>
>> You don't know how to find the original quote using Google? Then try Bing.
>>
>
> It's not worth the effort to ID some asshole who tries to impose his
> own interpretation what what Humes said.
>

Someone has to explain it to you.

>>
>>> Of *course* Humes had reason to believe that the bloodstained notes
>>> would end up on display somewhere.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, right? And have they? No.
>> Same thing with the autopsy photos. He was confident that the public
>> would never see them and see his lies.
>
> The public *does* have accesss to the autopsy photos, admittedly only
> via pirated copies.
>

I am talking about what he thought at the time.

> And they show that Humes was telling the truth (at least so far as he
> could tell).

Explain your parenthetical qualifier. Are you suggesting that he
withheld information that he was not allowed to tell?
Isn't that called a cover-up?

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> " So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my longhand
>>>> of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the
>>>> original notes
>>>
>>> Note, burned the notes.
>>
>> And the first autopsy report.
>>
>
> No.
>
>
>>>
>>>> in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from
>>>> ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And
>>>> there's been a lot of flack about this, that they're all part of a big
>>>> conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I
>>>> was involved. Ludicrous. That is what I did."
>>>>
>>>> [Humes 'longhand copy' is actually rough draft of the autopsy
>>>> protocol itself.]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, the asshole pipes up.
>>>
>>
>> He has to let people know the background story.
>>
>
> It's a "story" alright.
>
> A piece of buff nonsense.
>

He admitted it.
You deny it. You deny everything.

>
>>> That's not what Humes said.
>>>
>>
>> Because Humes lied.
>>
>
> You can't get your story stright, can you Tony.
>
> You want to claim that Humes *said* that he burned a draft of the
> autopsy report, and when I point out that that's not what he said, you
> respond "he lied."
>
> Get your story straight.
>
>
>>>
>>>> Q When you made reference to the notes that you copied out,
>>>> were you referring to the document that's marked Exhibit 2, or is that
>>>> something different?
>>>>
>>>> A Now, this is the product of--yeah. It's the product of those
>>>> notes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The *product* of the notes.
>>>
>>
>> Notes are the product of notes?
>
> No, an autopsy report (the one in evidence) the product of notes.

Humes said he burned the product of his notes. So you just admitted that
he burned the first autopsy report. Thank you.

>
>
>> No, the autopsy report is the product of notes.
>>
>
>
> Right. Now you are getting it.
>

No, you got it, as in hoisted by your own petard.

>>>>
>>>> Q So when you drafted--well, first, was there any other draft
>>>> of the autopsy protocol other than the one that you're holding in your
>>>> hand now--
>>>>
>>>> A No.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So he did *not* burn a "draft" of the autopsy protocol.
>>
>> Perjury.
>>
>
> Tony, your mean spiritedness and hatred is out of bounds.

Nonsense. You are not allowed to censor the messages to protect a public
figure who does not post here. You let a lot of venom be spewed by your
buddies as long as it is directed towards the conspiracy authors.

>
> Get your story straight. You quote Humes with approval, and then when
> I point out what he *really* said you call him a liar.
>

I quote when he lies.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> [compare with his WC testimony:
>>>>
>>>> "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday,
>>>> November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and
>>>> of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in
>>>> the fireplace of my recreation room." Humes is tied in knots by this time.]
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is just milking an imprecision of language.
>>>
>>
>> Just pointing out the perjury.
>>
>
> You need to get past the notion that everybody with testimony you
> don't like is a liar.
>

This is not about liking the testimony. I like it because it reveals his
lies.

>
>
>>>
>>>> Q --Exhibit 2?
>>>>
>>>> A No. There was not. [see above]
>>>>
>>>> Q So when you wrote down the information-- well, when you were
>>>> drafting what is now Exhibit 2, would it be fair to say that you had in
>>>> your hand two or three pages, approximately--
>>>>
>>>> A Right.
>>>>
>>>> Q --of handwritten notes--
>>>>
>>>> A And I converted the shorthand information there to that document.
>>>>
>>>> Q When you say "that document," you're referring to Exhibit 2?
>>>>
>>>> A Yes, exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Q Was there any information that was contained on the
>>>> handwritten notes that was not included in the document that's now
>>>> Exhibit 2--
>>>>
>>>> A I don't believe so.
>>>>
>>>> Q Did you ever make a copy that--a copy of the notes that
>>>> contained the same information as was on the original handwritten notes
>>>> that was in any form other than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
>>>>
>>>> A No.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? Of course he didn't make a copy of a copy.
>>>
>>
>> A copy of the original notes.
>>
>
> No "copy" that was different from the autopsy report in evidence.
>

Notes, not the autopsy report.

>
>>>
>>>> Q Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1
>>>> in the original appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
>>>>
>>>> A Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave
>>>> these back to J. I presume I did. I don't know where they came from.
>>>>
>>>> Q Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood
>>>> being on the document that's now marked Exhibit 1?
>>>>
>>>> A I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
>>>>
>>>> [So much for the 'terrible impression' bloodstained artifacts
>>>> are supposed to have had on poor squeamish Dr. Humes.]
>>>>
>>>
>>> The asshole speaks up again.
>>
>> To point out the absurdity of the Humes lies.
>>
>
> You are just like Holmes. It's all "liar! liar!"
>

Not my fault that Humes lied.

Pointing out and underlining for those who don't understand.

>>> Humes wasn't absolutely clear, maybe not in his own mind, but not in
>>> the way he spoke.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so instead of admitting that Humes lied you would rather say that he
>> was confused. Fine with me.
>>
>
> Witnesses *are* often confused -- at least in the real world, which is
> not Tony's world.
>

You should try that tactic more often. When you catch someone in a lie,
just claim that they were confused. But I never see you do that for a
conspiracy writer.

> But any confusion is compounded by bad and tendentious questioning.

You want softball questions only? What do you think it was, Fox News?

>
>>>
>>>> A Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was
>>>> everything exclusive of the finished draft that you have as
>>>> Exhibit--whatever it is.
>>>>
>>>> Q My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of
>>>> the report that was burned or whether it was--
>>>>
>>>> A I think it was--
>>>>
>>>> Q --handwritten notes--
>>>>
>>>> A It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
>>>>
>>>> [Ah! It was BOTH!!!!!!!]
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the first time he has said that, and it contradicts all his
>>> testimony so far.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. He's admitting that he lied earlier and you keep denying that he
>> lied even after this shows that he admitted that he lied.
>
> He hasn't admitted anything. He's trying to respond to incompetent
> questioning.
>

Oh, new tactic. Blame the questioners for asking pointed questions.

>
>> That's a
>> magnificent type of loyalty that you possess. Just like when you guys kept
>> denying that Nixon knew about Watergate the day after he admitted it.
>>
>
> Quite making up silly things. That's why a lot of people killfile
> you.
>

Not quite.

People killfile me because they can not debate honestly and can not answer
my questions. I just got you to admit that Humes destroyed the original
autopsy report, the product of the notes in addition to the original
bloodstained notes. So blame ME for questioning you.

>
>>>
>>>> Q Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being
>>>> the equivalent of draft of the report?
>>>>
>>>> A I don't know. Again, it's a hair- splitting affair that I
>>>> can't understand. Everything that I personally prepared until I got to
>>>> the status of the handwritten document that later was transcribed was
>>>> destroyed. You can call it anything you want, whether it was the notes
>>>> or what, I don't know. But whatever I had, I didn't want anything else
>>>> to remain, period.
>>>
>>> Note, Humes does *not* say he burned both the notes and a draft.
>>>
>>> He's impatient with attempts to put words in his mouth.
>>
>> He's squirming under intense questioning, maybe for the first time under
>> oath.
>>
>
> He's having to deal with very poor questioning.
>

You can't deal with any questioning so you don't think people should be
questioned at all.

The draft was the product of the notes as Humes explained.

>
>> You claimed he
>> only burned NOTES. Keep repeating the word NOTES for another 50 years and
>> see if anyone will believe you.
>>
>
> Keep pushing this silly Horne stuff for 50 years, and see if anybody
> thinks it anything but crackpot stuff.
>

I don't give a fig about Horne. My argument predates Horne.

> Indeed, you won't have to wait 50 years. :-)
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Q Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related
>>>> to the autopsy that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what
>>>> the exact circumstances--
>>>>
>>>> A I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as
>>>> an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that
>>>> hard to understand?
>>>>
>>>> Q When I first asked the question, you explained that the
>>>> reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the
>>>> President on it.
>>>>
>>>> A Right.
>>>>
>>>> Q The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of--
>>>>
>>>> A Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
>>>> was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know...
>>>
>>> He doesn't know.
>>>
>>
>> He admits right there that the draft report would not have had blood on
>> it. And you couldn't explain how it COULD possibly have the President's
>> blood on it when he wrote it at home the next day.
>>
>
> You're not even reading his testimony. He says "whether I even did
> that."
>

He doesn't want to admit what he did.
It's like one of those fake apologies where someone says he apologizes
IF any of his remarks offended anybody.

> But you are insisting he did, with *only* his testimony as evidence.
>

Look at the damn documents.

>
>> You need to change your cover-up strategy just as Nixon did. Just admit
>> that he burned the first autopsy report, but explain that he did that ONLY
>> because he had misspelled a medical term and did not want to mislead
>> anyone. He wrote Cerebral when he meant Cerebellar. End of controversy.
>> Try it. I bet you can get away with it. No royalties necessary.
>>
>
> Tony, you are *real* slow getting this.
>
> There *was* no draft autopsy report that he burned. Just notes.

He said he burned the "product" of the notes in addition to the notes.

I can SEE he exhibit.

>> How if you want to talk about the LEAD CORE being squeezed out of the base
>> fragment and then a piece sliced off, it would be 4.5 mm wide, not 6.5 mm
>> wide. The 6.5 mm object is a hoax designed to frame Oswald by a doctor who
>> knows nothing about M-C bullets.
>>
>
> Oh, a "hoax."
>
> And Bush mounted the 9/11 attacks.
>

Is that your theory? It's not mine. I said it was al Qaeda before you
had ever heard of them.

> There is plenty in the medical record to convict Oswald besides the
> 6.5 mm. fragment.
>

Cute fallback. Begging the question again. This is not about who pulled
the trigger. This is about covering up for the autopsy doctors and their
incompetence.

> The AP x-ray shows nasty fractures radiating from the entry in the
> cowlick area.
>

Wonderful. Not relevant now. Start a new thread.

> Finck noted beveling on the inner table at the back of the skull.
>

So what?
He didn't even note the wound which Dr. Angel did on the frontal bone.

> And the photos of the back of the head (a stereo pair) show the
> entrance wound in the cowlick.

No, you hero Commander Humes said it shows a bloodclot. Are you calling
him a liar? Is that permitted here or should you be banned for calling
someone a liar?

>
> You guys just can't pass up any opportunity to cry "fake!," even when
> fakery would have made no sense.
>

Fakery makes a lot of send to change a frontal wound into a back of the
head wound AND frame Oswald.

>
>>>
>>>> Instead, Dr. Baden, in a high-profile appearance at
>>>> the 2003 Wecht Conference, claimed that the fragment simply "rubbed off"
>>>> the open base of the bullet. Huh? Well, at least this spurious
>>>> explanation, which is in direct opposition to the findings of Baden's
>>>> Pathology Panel,
>>>
>>> No it's not. Where the hell did this come from?
>>>
>>
>> Jeez, why don't you just watch the Wecht conference?
>>
>
> You pretend not to understand me.
>
> How was Baden's claim at odds with the HSCA?
>

No one said the entire HSCA. Don't misrepresent what the author said just
because you don't like him. He said it was at odds with the findings of
the Forensic Pathology Panel. Just as his version of the exit wound was at
odds with Dr. Angel. But Dr. Angel's opinion was not chosen as the HSCA's
final opinion. And Dr. Baden's opinion prevaled.

>
>
>>>
>>>> by the way, acknowledged that the fragment was not a
>>>> slice incorporating both jacket and lead. Meanwhile, McAdams, apparently
>>>> unable to process that the base of the bullet was found intact in the
>>>> front section of the limousine, claimed (in a September 17, 2010 post on
>>>> the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup) that the fragment "was almost
>>>> certainly sheared off the base of the bullet." My God! What smoke!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing about that fragment precludes it being sheared off.
>>>
>>
>> It is physically impossible.
>>
>
> Says Tony Marsh, famous forensic pathologist.
>

As I said before it is not a pathology question it is a ballistics
question.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a lie. That's an understandable confusion between the
>>>>> *debribed* state of the wound, and the wound as Shaw first saw it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More nonsense. Only YOU are understandably confused about everything.
>>>> And who again was it who said the scar was VERTICAL when we now know it
>>>> was horizontally elongated? Got any hints??
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> The bullet was tumbling.
>>
>> Oh, so now when you're stuck for an answer you claim the bullet was
>> tumbling?
>>
>
> That's what mattered. It means it hit something, almost certainly
> Connally.
>

Just because a bullet is tumbling does not mean it has to hit something.
What is your point?

>> And answer the damn question. What idiot said the scar was vertical?
>>
>
> I have no idea, and I don't care. It doesn't matter.
>

Of course you do and you know that an honest answer would be your
downfall.

>>>
>>>
>>>>> And either way, it indicates a tumbling bullet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. You think the wound on JFK's head was exactly that same length
>>>> and yet you don't claim that was caused by a tumbling bullet.
>>>> You are the chief of the Hypocrites.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It entered the skull on the slant. Not like the back wound.
>>>
>>
>> The back wound was at a slant. So finally you admit that an elongated
>> wound can be caused by something other than a tumbling bullet. You've come
>> a long way in 50 years.
>>
>
>
> Read the HSCA, will you.
>
> The wound on Connally's back did not have an abrasion collar (which it
> would if it entered on the slant) nor the undermining of the
> contralateral margin.
>

What about all those exhibits showing how either a tumbling bullet or a
tangential entrance produces an abrasion collar?

[Jean Davison]

>  http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5...

>
>               IOW, Frazier said what the WR claimed he said.
>
>               This reminds me of Lane's editing of Ruby's testimony:
>
> QUOTE:
>
>                         RUBY [to Earl Warren]: But you are the only
> one that can save me.  I think you can.
>
>                         WARREN:  Yes?
>
>                          RUBY: But by delaying minutes, you lose the
> chance.  And all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all.
>
> UNQUOTE      [RTJ, 245]
>
>             Lane left out the very next words out of Ruby's mouth:
> "There was no conspiracy."
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5...
> (bottom of page)
>
> Jean

Here's another example of Lane's habit of ruthlessly ripping
quotes out of context -- or "lying by omission."


QUOTE:
>>>
A back entrance wound was therefore inconvenient, and, though
evidently
established beyond doubt by the Humes autopsy diagram and
corroborated by the
holes in the jacket and shirt, it disappeared. The Commission found
instead that
the bullet had entered 'the back of President Kennedy's neck'. In
that fashion,
the Commission was able to report that the bullet which entered the
back of the
neck quite logically would exit at the front of the throat.
>>>>
UNQUOTE [RTJ, p. 64]

Lane's footnote for "The Commission found instead that the
bullet had entered 'the back of President Kennedy's neck' " cites the
WR, page 87.

Page 87-88 actually says, "...another bullet wound was observed
**NEAR THE BASE OF** the back of President Kennedy's neck.... The hole
was located approximately 5 1/2 inches (14mm) ...below the tip of the
right mastoid process, the bony point behind the ear."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0056a.htm

Those measurements (from the autopsy report) put the wound in
JFK's upper BACK, not in his neck.


Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Great, so you are claiming that the WC lied about the back wound by
calling it a neck wound. Thanks. But in fact you can't measure from the
mastoid process because it is a moveable landmark. The HSCA pointed out
that flaw back in 1978, but I guess you never read that.

> Jean
>
>

[John McAdams]

On 5 Aug 2012 10:25:33 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The buffs have made a lot of hay with simple distortion of language.

The wound was at T1. It's that simple. It's consistent with the exit
in the nectk.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

It's not a simple distortion of language. It's a deliberate cover-up and
you condone it. Is Boswell's "correction" of his face sheet a distortion
of language, choosing the wrong word?

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

I forget, what is that called when you change the word on an official
document to mislead the public?

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[John McAdams]

On 5 Aug 2012 23:42:40 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Tony, your constantly calling everybody who provides testimony you
find inconvenient a liar makes any sensible person view your posts
with disdain.

>Is Boswell's "correction" of his face sheet a distortion
>of language, choosing the wrong word?
>
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif
>

He was making the point that the real wound was higher than what was
shown on the face sheet.

Do you doubt that the wound really *was* higher?

>I forget, what is that called when you change the word on an official
>document to mislead the public?
>

Nobody changed any words to mislead the public. The WC had the
Rydberg drawing, which showed the wound actually in the neck. They
did *not* have the autopsy photos.

They *did* have the autopsy report that said the wound was 14 cm.
below the tip of the right mastoid process. But it's very doubtful
anybody on the WC knew where that was.

Indeed, it would be in different places on different people, depending
on their stature.

So what they were guilty of was imprecision, the result of failing to
see what a huge issue the buffs would make of the location of the back
wound.

.John

--

[John McAdams]

On 5 Aug 2012 23:42:40 -0400, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

Where do you think the back wound way, Tony?

Give me a straightforward and honest answer.

I say T1.

Do you disagree?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, I disagree. I say just above T1 and to the right of C7.
Here ya go:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/back_entry.jpg

Your turn. Let's see YOUR diagram.

Give me a straightforward and honest answer.

[Anthony Marsh]

You know that I am not allowed to call another poster a liar so why are
you accusing me of doing something which you forbid? Maybe you can invent
a better euphemism that means the same thing as liar and every time I use
it you can cite my saying liar. How about prevaricator? Ask me if I care
what WC defenders think. Go ahead. I triple dare you.

>
>> Is Boswell's "correction" of his face sheet a distortion
>> of language, choosing the wrong word?
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif
>>
>
> He was making the point that the real wound was higher than what was
> shown on the face sheet.

Fine, but then why prevaricate about it?

Why not just show the damn autopsy photo and we can see for ourselves
where the wound was? I am equally annoyed by Burkley prevaricating about
the entrance wound being at T-3. As I have shown that is impossible too
low because the bullet would hit the manubrium.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/18degrees_to_manubrium.gif

I don't like prevaricating by either side.

>
> Do you doubt that the wound really *was* higher?
>

Yes, I told you 8,923 times that the entrance wound was BELOW the top of
the shoulders. But you can't see that for yourself when you look at the
autopsy photos.

You can't even tell the difference between ABOVE and BELOW. Here, maybe
this will help you out.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/fox5hole.jpg

Interesting anecdote. I gave a lecture to a class at a university and drew
a horizontal line and drew a dot BELOW the line. Then I asked the class if
the dot was ABOVE the line or BELOW the line. 19 of the students said it
was BELOW the line and one student said it was ABOVE the line. So I asked
her why she said ABOVE and she said well because the Warren Commission
said ABOVE and they would never lie.

When O'Brien holds up 4 fingers and tells you that he is holding up 5, you
can actually see 5 fingers. When you look at the autopsy photos you can
actually see the back wound where Boswell placed the X.

>
>> I forget, what is that called when you change the word on an official
>> document to mislead the public?
>>
>
> Nobody changed any words to mislead the public. The WC had the
> Rydberg drawing, which showed the wound actually in the neck. They
> did *not* have the autopsy photos.
>

Rydberg's drawing did not show the wound were it actually was. It was a
cartoon. Propaganda.

Warren saw the autopsy photos. Specter saw the autopsy photos. They did
not want the American people to see the autopsy photos. Because it would
expose their prevarication.

> They *did* have the autopsy report that said the wound was 14 cm.
> below the tip of the right mastoid process. But it's very doubtful
> anybody on the WC knew where that was.
>

Which is meaningless as the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel pointed out.
You are only 50 years behind.

> Indeed, it would be in different places on different people, depending
> on their stature.
>

Not lame enough. You should try claiming that the mastoid process is in
different places on different people, depending on race and genetics. You
need to up your game.

> So what they were guilty of was imprecision, the result of failing to
> see what a huge issue the buffs would make of the location of the back
> wound.
>

OK, So what if they were incompetent.

It's not like the truth matters to people like you. Someone at the WC was
smart enough to see the problem and realized that they had to rewrite that
section of the report. Try reading the internal memos some time.

[John King]

In article
<25f2c4d4-48b2-4010...@p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> IOW, Frazier said what the WR claimed he said.
>
> This reminds me of Lane's editing of Ruby's testimony:
>
> QUOTE:
>
> RUBY [to Earl Warren]: But you are the only
> one that can save me. I think you can.
>
> WARREN: Yes?
>
> RUBY: But by delaying minutes, you lose the
> chance. And all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all.
>
> UNQUOTE [RTJ, 245]
>
> Lane left out the very next words out of Ruby's mouth:
> "There was no conspiracy."

Yes, they all do that.

To me this is one of the most egregious disservices of all that CTs have
done to the general public's understanding of the assassination. I cannot
recall at this moment even one conspiracy oriented book that I've ever
read, read about, heard about, etc., in which any mention whatsoever is
made of these crucial parts of Ruby's WC testimony, in which he,
repeatedly, flatly denied any knowledge whatsoever of any conspiracy to
assassinate the President, and instead said the only conspiracy he
believed in was a conspiracy by right-wing groups to make it *falsely*
*appear* that he was part of a conspiracy to murder JFK. The only parts
the conspiracy authors ever, ever, *EVER* quote are those in which Ruby
pleads to be taken to Washington so he can "tell the truth," always
stopping their quotations before it gets to the parts where Ruby says,
with unequivocal plainness, *why* he wants to be taken to Washington,
which is of course to get away from the Dallas right-wingers who are
supposedly trying to frame him with a conspiracy of which he had no
knowledge. And of course these authors also quote the brief television
interview in which Ruby claimed there were powerful people in Dallas who
were trying to prevent him from telling the truth, and then fail to
mention that in the WC testimony Ruby makes it absurdly plain who these
powerful people are, even naming one of them, Edwin Walker, and what
they're trying to do to him, according to him.

The game of these conspiracy authors is obvious: they want all the readers
to believe that Ruby kept dropping hints that he knew more about the
*assassination*, so they leave out anything in which he goes beyond
hinting, and talks about an entirely *different* conspiracy.

I have little doubt that at least most of these authors are doing this
purposefully. It is very difficult to believe that most of them haven't
read a good deal more of Ruby's testimony than they quote in their books.
It is almost beyond credible belief that they just "honestly didn't see
Ruby's very next sentence." Obviously most of these authors are
deliberately trying to mislead the entire world, as these books are read
in many more countries than the United States alone, and know perfectly
well that if they quoted even one of these crucial statements it would
instantly destroy the entire argument they are making about Ruby, and the
authors would rapidly lose credibility among the readers. So these
authors pretend that these statements by Ruby simply do not exist, that
they were never published in any form, in the WC volumes or in any other
publication in any language in any country on this planet. And there are
times that even when it is publicly pointed out to them what Ruby *really*
said, even then they absolutely *refuse* to revise their books in the
slightest, or issue any sort of public retraction for their obvious
blunder.

The same has been my experience with all conspiracy-oriented
documentaries, movies, etc. that I have ever seen. Not one of them, not
one, mentions, even obliquely, that Ruby made these statements, and at
least some of the directors/producers of these efforts surely must know
perfectly well that he did, and are also pretending, on purpose, that he
didn't.

Now, I do think Ruby suffered from extreme paranoia, which got worse with
each passing month until his death, and I do not believe for a moment that
there really was a conspiracy by the John Birchers, etc. to implicate him
in the assassination. But now we know that Ruby was worried about the
wrong people. He should have been worried about the CTs of the world.
They are the ones, still today, involved in the *real* conspiracy to
implicate him in the assassination. And I do believe it is a conspiracy
to some extent, because if even one time more than one of these authors
and/or filmmakers agreed with each other to deliberately leave out these
Ruby statements, then that is the very definition of a conspiracy. And it
is implausible to believe that this very thing hasn't happened at least
once in the past 49+ years; in fact, it is more likely than not that it
has happened a lot more than once, and that a lot more than two people,
total, have agreed, purposefully, to do this in their books,
documentaries, and movies.

Now naturally some have said, and will continue to say, that Ruby was
simply lying when he denied knowledge of any conspiracy to assassinate the
President. But even if he really was lying, that *still* does not excuse
these CTs from *deliberately* misleading the entire world. They can
*still* at least acknowledge that he did make these denials, even if they
then go on to try to convince the readers/viewers that Ruby was lying.
But to pretend, purposefully, that he didn't even make these denials *at*
*all* is inexcusable.

And yes, yes, yes, of course lone-nut-oriented authors and filmmakers do
this same type of thing too, selectively quoting various witnesses, etc.
So damned what? That doesn't make the CT authors/filmmakers even slightly
less guilty, not even slightly. One is equally guilty of a crime whether
one is the only person on the planet who has ever committed the same crime
or is only one of millions who have committed it. It is irrelevant how
many or how few others have committed the crime; each individual person
who commits it is equally guilty either way.

Many of these very same CTs will criticize people like Posner for
selectively quoting, and then turn right around in their extreme hypocrisy
and do exactly what they criticize him for doing. The argument, "Well,
LNs do it too," is elementary school playground logic.

***THE ETHICAL AND HONEST PERSON DOES THE RIGHT THING EVEN WHEN HER/HIS
OPPONENTS DON'T.***

*All* CT authors whose books I've read (notice I didn't say "almost all,"
I said "all"), and *all* CT filmmakers whose works I've seen are among the
most dishonest and unethical people I have ever known about in my life, at
least on this particular issue of the assassination.