Discovery Channel Specials - Well, I Guess That Ties It Up...
Ms. Burb
both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
Respectfully,
MsBurb
Burb's Buck & Buntline Inn (B3) http://burbsbuckandbuntlineinn.blogspot.com/
2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)
http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
Gil Jesus
> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
John Schwanik
would air "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" which was pro-conspiracy, and "JFK: The
Ruby Connection" with was somewhat anti-conspiracy back to back.
Also I wanted to comment on Gary Mack. Now I respect Mack's approach but
it's again it's somewhat confusing that he disproves many conspiracy
theories throughout the "Unsolved History" specials yet he personally
believes in the HSCA acoustics evidence of two shooters.
As one of the announcers said: "the debate will continue!"
Spence
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
>
>
> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
I think Gary Mack is finally coming to the conclusions that we all
came to years ago.
cdddraftsman
> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
>
>
> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
Well it wouldn't be the first time the American mobocracy prefered to
listen to the Soviets rather than to their own USG . 26 US citizens *
giving away our secrets to the USSR while working at Los Alimos during
WW2 because they thought 'Uncle Joe' Stalin ** was a nice guy . It's
digusting !
Keynotes :
* See PBS 'Red Files'
** One of , if not the greatest mass murderer's of the 20th century .
It's a wrap alright . Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond any reasonable
doubt .
tl
bigdog
> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>
> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>
> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>
> Respectfully,
> MsBurb
>
>
> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
Didn't see The Ruby Connection, but ITTC was well done with the exception
of a technical error (placing Jackie in the wrong place). This error in no
way affected the key finding that the headshot came from behind. Field
tests invariably come down on the side of the lone assassin theory and
invariably the CTs will take exception to the results because those
results are imcompatable with their pet theories. Of course, don't ever
ask a CT to conduct their own tests to prove their theories. That is
considered unreasonable.
MsBurb
Like the LN theory makes JFK any less dead...
What's so gosh darn terrible by admitting that although many factions
may have had it in for BOTH the brothers, that a wacko extremist dude
got off a head shot first...evidence doesn't lie, because it doesn't
need to...
IF there are any CTers out there who would like to disprove what those
specials demonstrated, MsBurb is ALL EARS (rather eyes on a Forum, I
guess)!!!
Anthony Marsh
I appreciate the fact that Millicent tries to counter the show, but as
usual she gets some basic facts wrong which tends to discredit our
efforts.
<QUOTE>
It was one of many bizarre events associated with the Kennedy
assassination. An unnamed Secret Service agent is said to have had the
President's limousine "cleaned." The agent was probably looking for bullet
fragments. These are typically hidden in blood or embedded in brain, so
every bit of material from JFK's head should have been examined for these
fragments, whether it landed on the floor of the car or the floor of the
trauma room, or elsewhere.
<q/>
She ignores the fact that we know exactly why the Secret Service agent was
cleaning out the car. Not to look for evidence, but to clean up the bloody
mess. In the process I am sure that some evidence was accidentally lost.
But no evidence was picked up and there was no effort to find evidence.
But of course she is correct that every effort to collect evidence was not
made.
<QUOTE>
Kennedy's head, still spurting arterial blood, first moved forward, then
dramatically backward. Then Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the trunk and any
blood and brain on her clothes could have gotten onto the trunk by her
actions. Or, the reverse could have happened. Blood and brain that landed
on the trunk could have adhered to the clothes of Mrs. Kennedy as she
moved around, and was thus removed, or at least diminished. In the
meantime, Kennedy fell across the seat, still bleeding, further altering
the original spatter pattern.
<q/>
This notion is false for two reasons. First, the majority of the staining
of her dress occurred AFTER she had gone out on the trunk. It happened
when she cradled the President's head in her lap. She was not heavily
stained with blood when she went out onto the trunk. Second, the whole
trunk was splattered with blood, not just the area where we can see she
was. So she could not possibly be the cause for all the blood on the
trunk. And the blood on the trunk was in the form of tiny droplets, not
smears as we'd see from someone crawling on the entire trunk.
<QUOTE>
Part of the crime scene walked away when Secret Service agents Will Greer
and Roy Kellerman left the car. Both had copious amounts of brain on their
jackets. The two witnesses produced by the Discovery Channel had nothing
to add.
<q/>
True, but the Connallys were also spattered by blood and bullet fragments
as well as the escort cyclists, but no attempt was made to preserve that
evidence. Dr. Henry Lee would have worked backwards to replicate their
positions and document the blood spatter trajectory.
<QUOTE>
Autopsy photos show a brain that looks intact except for a shallow dip on
top of the right side. The cerebellum is intact. Not a great deal of brain
loss. It does not seem to equal all the brain loss described by witnesses,
including the prominent neurosurgeon who examined Kennedy at Parkland
Hospital in Dallas.
<q/>
The autopsy photos show an area of the brain in the front above the right
eye which is blasted out. We simply can not rely on the casual
observations of the Parkland doctors. They were not forensic pathologists
and were more concerned with trying to save the President's life than to
solve the case. And most could not even tell the difference between front
and back, left and right, cerebellar and cerebral.
<QUOTE>
After the Discovery Channel's marksman shot the dummy heads from the sixth
floor position, the loss of dummy brain looks far greater than what is
missing from the brain in the autopsy photos.
If this show had been driven by science instead of politics, the amount of
brain lost by the dummy would have been compared with the amount lost by
Kennedy (allegedly, per suspect autopsy photos). It would have been very
easy to quantify both.
<q/>
Of course we all know by now that the shooting tests hit their dummy heads
in the wrong places. Even the shot from the grassy knoll was designed to
hit the wrong place, intentionally to create an exit wound on the left
side of the head, to ridicule conspiracy theories. This show was driven by
Gary Mack's ego, not science.
<QUOTE>
There is yet another revision concerning the head, this one in the X-ray:
a shiny bullet fragment, round as a dime, and 6.5mm, the diameter of a
Carcano bullet, illuminating for all to see???the new improved location of
the entrance wound. Only no one saw it during and immediately after the
autopsy. Not the pathologists, not the radiologist-on-call ... no one.
Yet they all reported seeing much smaller, less obvious metal fragments.
<q/>
Millicent fails to point out one simple fact which negates the sliver
theory for the object. A FMJ bullet like the WCC Mannlicher-Carcano can
not possibly leave a 6.6 mm sliver at an entrance wound. Regardless of
whether you think the two large fragments found in the limo were from the
head shot, the appearance of the base fragment tells you that when a FMJ
bullet breaks up, it almost always breaks in half near the cannelure and
the jacket stays intact. It is physically impossible to shave off a 6.5 mm
sliver from a jacketed bullet. And the WCC has an unusually thick jacket.
That artifact may not even be a real object, but if it is, it can not be a
bullet fragment. If it were the lead core squeezed out from the base
fragment its diameter would be about 4.5 mm, not 6.5 mm. Unless of course
it IS 4.5 mm and in the FRONT of the head and not in the back.
<QUOTE>
In every case in which jacketed rounds were fired at the simulated skulls,
the bullets went right through the skulls, all the way through the car,
and into the ground. No fragments were found on the floor of the car, or
in the simulated brain.
The medical ballistic literature describing experiments, as well as actual
war time experience, shows that full or partially jacketed bullets such as
those allegedly used by Oswald, are always disrupted in perforating head
shots.
Did the simulated skulls lack the appropriate density or hardness, and
possibly fragment more easily? Skulls that fragment easily will create
more spatter.
<q/>
Could it also be that they intentionally used the wrong type of bullets?
Or could it be that there WAS no FMJ bullet hit to the back of the head?
<QUOTE>
No Shot from the South Knoll
No experimental shots were fired from this location, which was on
Kennedy's front left at the time he was shot in the head. The marksman,
Michael Yardley, dismissed it as useless because, from where he stood,
only two or three inches of head were visible.
Yardley and Mack had this conversation while standing at the foot of a
hill that rose sharply behind them. Just a few feet away, at the crest of
the hill, behind a black metal fence with wide gaps between the narrow
bars, a marksman would have had a much better view of Kennedy's head - but
neither man comments on this possibility.
Nor does Gary Mack describe or show photographs of the south lawn on that
day in 1963 when it was full of parked cars. A marksman would have had
plenty of cover, could even have fired while standing on something behind
a car.
<q/>
In fact Gary Mack's ego dictated that the grassy knoll shot simulate HIS
theory about Badge Man and an entrance in the right temple. He
intentionally ignored the position identified by the acoustical evidence
and the semi-circular entrance wound in the frontal bone above the right
eye. He dare not fire from IN FRONT lest it produce the rear exit wound
which so many conspiracy believers propose.
<QUOTE>
No Shot from the South Side of the Triple Overpass
A shot from the particular location on the overpass where the marksman
stood was dismissed because the bullet would have gone through the
windshield to strike JFK???and the implication was made that no hole
existed in the windshield, and there was no reference to the fact that
this is controversial. A policeman said he saw a small,
through-and-through hole in that windshield. He said this knowing that
all kinds of people would be inspecting the car ?? other Dallas policemen,
the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA???so it was something that no
policeman would want to get wrong. Right or wrong, he must have believed
what he said.
(If there was such a hole, and if the shot came from the front, it would
have struck JFK in the throat. Witness Isaac Altgens took a photo of the
oncoming car before the headshot(s), and it shows what could be a hole in
the windshield.)
<q/>
Here Millicent is pushing her own theory which has no basis in fact. There
was no hole in the windshield. If she wants to bring up that controversy
then she needs to address the excellent article done by Josiah Thompson et
al proving that there was no hole in the windshield and my articles as
well.
<QUOTE>
The show moves on to the grand finale???a shot from a location comparable
to the sixth floor of the Depository Building. The marksman hits the spot.
The desired spatter pattern is produced. The two experts study the mess in
the car, and come to the desired conclusion.
One of these experts put one end of a stick in the hole in the dashboard,
and the other end through the presumed bullet path in the dummy's head,
and, of course, the stick pointed back up to the sixth floor.
Ooops. Bad move. This brings up the problem mentioned earlier: in the
actual case, one bullet allegedly broke while entering the head, and a
large fragment went on to put a ding high in the windshield before
dropping to the floor. But in the experiment, the bullet does not
fragment; it goes straight through the head, through the car, and into the
ground.
<q/>
This brings up a pet peeve of mine. I have badgered Dale Myers about his
diagram of the head wound trajectory. He has a single line exit the front
of the head and simply stopping in mid air. When I ask him to explain
where his red line ends up he simply refuses to answer. When I point out
that he is showing an intact bullet leaving the front of the head on a
downward trajectory and it must hit something in order to stop, he simply
denies it. The accidental result from the test of the head shot done on
that show illustrates what I was saying. Their bullet did not fragment,
but exited intact like the Myers diagram. And what happened? It did not
curve up and hit the chrome topping which was dented during the shooting.
It hit the dashboard. But Myers knows there was no other physical damage
to the limo other than the cracked windshield and dented chrome topping,
both too high for his trajectory of an intact bullet. So, what possible
solution is there to this conundrum? Simple, Dale Myers is a liar, Gary
Mack is a liar, and all his WC defender lackies are liars. Next time let
them try to find ammunition which DOES break into several pieces and try
to get a fragment to hit the chrome topping.
<QUOTE>
ADDENDUM
Buried deep in the Warren Commission Hearings is a fascinating passage
that might have lead to the revision in the location of the entrance
wound.
The Warren Commission asked the Edgewood Army Arsenal to "duplicate" the
assassination by firing at gelatin-filled skulls in order to test their
conclusions expressed in the autopsy report. Dr. Alfred Olivier who
supervised the experiments explained to Arlen Specter what they did. Note
what he says about the location of the exit:
We were aiming, as described in the autopsy report... the point 2
centimeters to the right of the external occipital protuberance and
slightly above it. We placed a mark on the skull at that point, according
to the autopsy the bullet emerged through the superorbital process (sic)
so we drew a line to give us the line of flight... (5 WCH 89) (Emphasis
mine.)
The "superorbital" process? (The bony ridge above the eye, and it is
"supra" not "super.") According to what autopsy report? There was no
great hole just above Kennedy's right eye. Olivier then showed Specter
Commission Exhibits 861 and 862, photographs of one of the experimental
skulls making it clear what that term meant: in addition to the defect on
the right side, the upper right side of the face was missing. Specter had
just learned, apparently for the first time, of two remarkable facts:
<q/>
But in fact there WAS a bullet wound on the frontal bone as pointed out by
Dr. Lawrence Angel for the HSCA. If they had connected that location on a
straight line trajectory with their imaginary entrance wound near the EOP
they would have had a much different path lower in the head which could
not lead back to the sniper's nest. Now, arguendo, what would have
happened if the HSCA had started with their much higher entrance entrance
wound and had their bullet exit at the semi-circular defect? Much the same
problem and again it would not point back to the sniper's nest. So, what
could they do? They simply lied and said that the semi-circular defect
seen on the frontal bone above the right eye was actually a couple of
inches farther back on the coronal suture. THAT is the only way they could
get the trajectory to point back to the TSBD. By simply lying about the
medical evidence.
<QUOTE>
No precise location of a bullet exit was ever documented. Consequently,
there is a range of possible exit points. Within this range, is an exit
that is consistent with a shot from the Dal-Tex building.
<q/>
Two problems with that theory. First, there is no entrance hole on the
back of the head anywhere. Second, the acoustical analysis does not show
any shot from the Dal-Tex position. If Millicent wants to experiment with
various Dal-Tex positions she can plug the coordinates into my program to
see if there is a match.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 23, 12:42 pm, Spence<rob.spen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 11:43 pm, "Ms. Burb"<msb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>>
>>> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>>
>>> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> MsBurb
>>
>>
>>> 2nd Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog (TLB2)http://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>> I think Gary Mack is finally coming to the conclusions that we all
>> came to years ago.
>
> Like the LN theory makes JFK any less dead...
>
> What's so gosh darn terrible by admitting that although many factions
> may have had it in for BOTH the brothers, that a wacko extremist dude
> got off a head shot first...evidence doesn't lie, because it doesn't
> need to...
>
Evidence DOES lie when those who control it lie. When we finally get to
SEE the actual evidence for ourselves we can see that they lied and
sometimes WHY they lied.
> IF there are any CTers out there who would like to disprove what those
> specials demonstrated, MsBurb is ALL EARS (rather eyes on a Forum, I
> guess)!!!
>
Baloney. You haven't been paying attention at all.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well.....I've been researching the medical evidence - it's a real
fright.
I've always been puzzled that so many law enforcement and medical
doctors describe an exit wound on the back of the head - why wouldn't
someone describe the same wound in the autopsy report, even if by
accident?
So I was struck by an interview with 20 year Navy veteran Douglas
Horne, who served as Chief Analyst for Medical Records, AARB.
In his words:
"....two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill....had been present at the
autopsy...and....were not only willing to be deposed, they couldn't
wait.... (b)oth men found the (photographic) images of the back of the
head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they
vividly remembered. O'Neill opined under oath that the images appeared
"doctored", by which he meant that the head had been put back together
by the doctors. Sibert testified that the head looked 'reconstructed'
- he actually used that word!"
Eh - the 2 FBI agents who were at the autopsy didn't think the photos
was an accurate representation of what they saw?
I really want to think of the medical evidence as being simple and
straight-forward, and thus Oswald's guilty verdict, but the more I
look, the more evidence of falsehood I find.
Sad - and so my investigation continues.
bigdog
The History Channel has been all over the map with its various
presentations. Little if anything that appears on THC is original
material. It is usually recycled programming from other sources.
Mainly, it's filler. They present programming 24/7 but there simply
isn't enough original material to fill all those hours so they take
what they can get from where ever they can get it, rerun it as often
as they can, and they really don't care too much what it says. They
just need to put eyeballs in front of the boob tube so they can sell
the corn flakes and the mouthwash. It is what TV has been all about
since day one. The technology might change, but it's still about the
bottom line.
MsBurb
Marsh, I am all ears...I'm just waiting for some clinical evidence to make
me see any option BUT a LN from the 6th TSBD...
If what they said in the show, that there had been a shot from the Knoll,
that the bullet would have gone thru JFK and hit Jackie, do you accept
this scenario at all...that is ONE option I have never considered before
this show aired...
Sooo, by YOUR estimation, that if someone sees the evidence as it is shown
to them, that makes them not paying attention...that's pretty lame, even
for you to say...I'm TRYING something fierce to pay attention to
everything available, and with all your above words, I'm still not seeing
where your analysis disproves theirs...but then again Tony, I guess I'm
NOT paying attention...
John Canal
>fright.
>I've always been puzzled that so many law enforcement and medical
>doctors describe an exit wound on the back of the head - why wouldn't
>someone describe the same wound in the autopsy report, even if by
>accident?
Have you ever considered the "possibility" that they didn't think it would
have been a good idea to descrbe a BOH wound--even one that they were
certain was collateral damage from the rear entering bullet--for fear such
a wound could be misinterpreted as evidence there had been a 2nd
shooter......and a conspiracy, possibly orchestrated by the Soviet Union?
In fact--IMHO, to the chagrin of all the hard line-think-inside-the-box
LNs around here--that scenario explains a lot.
For instance, it explains why there were no photos taken of the BOH when
the body was first received nor any of the BOH as soon as the scalp was
reflected. And it also explains why four months later, when the
investigation seemed to be pinning the whole dastardly deed on LHO, Humes
testified--almost without notice that--they had seen "cerebellum" when the
body was first recieved. Note that that super-subtle revelaton conflicts
with the autopsy report's "...somewhat into the occipital..." IOW, he was
testifying that the autopsy report understated the extent of the BOH
wound, because in order for them to see cerebellum, such a wound would
have had to extend down to near the EOP...way past "somewhat".
>So I was struck by an interview with 20 year Navy veteran Douglas
>Horne, who served as Chief Analyst for Medical Records, AARB.
>In his words:
>"....two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill....had been present at the
>autopsy...and....were not only willing to be deposed, they couldn't
>wait.... (b)oth men found the (photographic) images of the back of the
>head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they
>vividly remembered.
The images weren't inconsistent with the actual wounds, because the images
were taken very late in the procedure....IOW, had those images been taken
when the body was first received, then yes--of course--there would have
been a conflict. But, again, there were no images taken (see above for
why) and no conflict exists....and if Lifton, Horne and others who allege
that the images were forged would do their hoework, they' realize that.
In fact here's a good way of pinning down just how late in the night the
images were taken. Any researcher, even if they are among the hardliners,
who agrees that the bullet entered where the autopsy docs said it
did--near the EOP--and also agrees that the red splotch in the BOH images
is the entry (like the title of those images, that has that red splotch
centered, indicates), instead of some other anomly like dried blood, ###
HAS ### to admit the scalp was stretched before the images were taken. And
why on earth would I say that? Here's why.
First, Humes said the scalp was stretched. Second, if the bullet entered
near the EOP that'd mean it pierced the scalp about 2-3 inches above the
hairline (that's where the EOP generally is) and IN THE IMAGES THAT SCALP
ENTRY IS OBVIOUSLY 5-6 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE. Sooooooo, to you
researchers, whether you're an LN or CT, if you agree the autopsy docs
didn't mislocate the entry by an alleged whopping four inches, and the red
splotch in the images is the entry then you must--logically--agree with my
out-of-the-box conclusion that the autopsists and the morticians weren't
hallucinating when they said the scalp was streched and that those images
were taken ### AFTER ### they did so.
Bottom line..those images are hardly in conflict with what JFK's wounds
looked like at PH and when he was first received at Bethesda!
>O'Neill opined under oath that the images appeared
>"doctored", by which he meant that the head had been put back together
>by the doctors. Sibert testified that the head looked 'reconstructed'
It had been. The images are authentic...just not taken when most think
they were.
>- he actually used that word!"
>Eh - the 2 FBI agents who were at the autopsy didn't think the photos
>was an accurate representation of what they saw?
>I really want to think of the medical evidence as being simple and
>straight-forward, and thus Oswald's guilty verdict, but the more I
>look, the more evidence of falsehood I find.
>Sad - and so my investigation continues.
I've been at that for nearly 10 years...almost entirey focusing on the
head shot...maybe some day your investigation will result in conclusions
similar to mine?
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
pjfk
My take on ITTC:
http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_pmb.html
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Anthony Marsh
Maybe you don't understand how propaganda works. You can not fill the
whole hour with false information. That would be too obvious to people.
You have to load 90% of any presentation with facts and then insert your
10% lies carefully so that people can not tell which is which.
jas
Well stated.
I feel most of their original historical reenactments, when they do spend
the money making them (made-for-TV type film making, if you will), are
quite well-done production-wise.
Actually, the JFK conspiracy shows are now just a part of American
historical landscape as the shows supporting the LN, e.g., TMWKK. So they,
in their oddball way, belong there, in my humble opinion.
Like Stone's movie, we just don't have to concur with their conspiracist
angle, obviously.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 23, 5:35 pm, MsBurb<msb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 12:42 pm, Spence<rob.spen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 11:43 pm, "Ms. Burb"<msb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "JFK: Inside The Target Car" and "JFK:The Ruby Connection"...
>>
>>>> both come to the Lone Gunman resolution...
>>
>>>> pretty convincing experiments...Your Thoughts...
>>
>>>> Respectfully,
>>>> MsBurb
>>
Well, I'm not sure if it's Barb's theory or someone else, but someone had
a theory that all those back of the head photographs were taken at the END
of the autopsy after they had washed the hair and stitched the scalp back
together.
> Eh - the 2 FBI agents who were at the autopsy didn't think the photos
> was an accurate representation of what they saw?
Obviously as they examined the body they altered the appearance ever so
slightly from when it arrived. Just cleaning it up might change the way it
looked.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Due to the technical error of which I previously spoke, it is incorrect to
assume a head shot from the GK would have struck Jackie after exiting from
JFK's head. Such a shot would likely have missed her but the key point is
that a GK head shot should have either produced an exit wound on the left
side of JFK's head or had a non- exiting bullet found in the left
hemispere of JFK's brain. Neither of these is in evidence.
I do compliment you on you willingness to accept what is clearly one of
the strongest arguments against a GK head shot. It indicates a willingness
to look at the evidence logically and accept what it clearly is telling
us.
Anthony Marsh
No, it is stupid. The bullet does not even have to exit. And if the shot
hit the frontal bone and exited on the opposite side it would exit in the
left rear, well behind Jackie.
> Sooo, by YOUR estimation, that if someone sees the evidence as it is shown
> to them, that makes them not paying attention...that's pretty lame, even
You refuse to look at the evidence. You'd rather watch the science fiction
show with Gary Mack. Maybe not as cool as the Terminator, but just as
ridiculous.
> for you to say...I'm TRYING something fierce to pay attention to
> everything available, and with all your above words, I'm still not seeing
> where your analysis disproves theirs...but then again Tony, I guess I'm
> NOT paying attention...
>
No, you refuse to pay attention.
jbarge
Always a pleasure to consider a theory free of invective, something I
strive for but at which I sometimes fail.
I have no reason and certainly have never suggested the photographs
themselves were falsified, though what exactly they show is open to
question.
I have pondered your post, though with small children in my lap it is
truncated.
I have always thought the 4 inch error to be suspicious - of what
exactly will have to wait.
But grown medical professionals with access to a ruler can obviously
accurately measure a bullet wound.
So either something very wrong or something very bad went down that
night.
I have my suspicions about the brain and the alleged photos of the
brain as well - why would the weight of a heavily damaged brain be
1500 grams, the normal size of full grown man's grey matter?
It appears you are suggesting that they manipulated the scalp and took
the photo in an attempt to suggest a more "Lone Nut" type of head
wound?
And that they did so not because there was actual evidence of an exit
wound of a grassy knoll shot, but because "collateral damage" might
have been open to the GN interpertation?
If this is correct - and please feel free to clarify - I remain
skeptical of the motive.
In other words, the manipulation from the "late" photo session is
extremely believable to me, but doing so merely because someone
"might" interperet honest photos and autopsy report seems - to me at
least - an overreaction, to say the least, and somewhat pointless as
the photos were unlikely to surface.
In other words there wasn't a need to falsify the evidence - unless of
course the evidence DID lead somewhere they didn't want it to go.
And of course with your theory the photo - since it isn't tampered
with - shows the body as it was in Parkland & Bethesda.
But with your theory the head wound itself was tampered with, eh?
John Canal
jbarge says...
>
>On Nov 24, 8:55=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >Well.....I've been researching the medical evidence - it's a real
>> >fright.
>> >I've always been puzzled that so many law enforcement and medical
>> >doctors describe an exit wound on the back of the head - why wouldn't
>> >someone describe the same wound in the autopsy report, even if by
>> >accident?
>>
>d
>> have been a good idea to descrbe a BOH wound--even one that they were
>h
>> a wound could be misinterpreted as evidence there had been a 2nd
>> shooter......and a conspiracy, possibly orchestrated by the Soviet Union?
>> In fact--IMHO, to the chagrin of all the hard line-think-inside-the-box
>> LNs around here--that scenario explains a lot.
>>
>> For instance, it explains why there were no photos taken of the BOH when
>> the body was first received nor any of the BOH as soon as the scalp was
>> reflected. And it also explains why four months later, when the
>> investigation seemed to be pinning the whole dastardly deed on LHO, Humes
>e
>> body was first recieved. Note that that super-subtle revelaton conflicts
>> with the autopsy report's "...somewhat into the occipital..." IOW, he was
>> testifying that the autopsy report understated the extent of the BOH
>> wound, because in order for them to see cerebellum, such a wound would
>> have had to extend down to near the EOP...way past "somewhat".
>>
>> >So I was struck by an interview with 20 year Navy veteran Douglas
>> >Horne, who served as Chief Analyst for Medical Records, AARB.
>> >In his words:
>> >"....two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill....had been present at the
>> >autopsy...and....were not only willing to be deposed, they couldn't
>> >wait.... (b)oth men found the (photographic) images of the back of the
>> >head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound they
>> >vividly remembered.
>>
>s
>> were taken very late in the procedure....IOW, had those images been taken
>> when the body was first received, then yes--of course--there would have
>> been a conflict. But, again, there were no images taken (see above for
>> why) and no conflict exists....and if Lifton, Horne and others who allege
>> that the images were forged would do their hoework, they' realize that.
>>
>> In fact here's a good way of pinning down just how late in the night the
>> images were taken. Any researcher, even if they are among the hardliners,
>> who agrees that the bullet entered where the autopsy docs said it
>> did--near the EOP--and also agrees that the red splotch in the BOH images
>> is the entry (like the title of those images, that has that red splotch
>> centered, indicates), instead of some other anomly like dried blood, ###
>d
>> why on earth would I say that? Here's why.
>>
>> First, Humes said the scalp was stretched. Second, if the bullet entered
>> near the EOP that'd mean it pierced the scalp about 2-3 inches above the
>> hairline (that's where the EOP generally is) and IN THE IMAGES THAT SCALP
>> ENTRY IS OBVIOUSLY 5-6 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE. Sooooooo, to you
>> researchers, whether you're an LN or CT, if you agree the autopsy docs
>d
>> splotch in the images is the entry then you must--logically--agree with m=
Not exactly what I'm suggesting....I wasn't clear. This is of course
speculation but I've tried to figure out what their motives were based on
the facts.
I don't think they covered up a hole in the BOH to make sure such a wound
wasn't misinterpreted as proof there was a frontal shooter. Because of the
ossibility there was going to be an open-casket funeral, They (the
morticians with the autopsists' assistance) neded to cover up the large
hole that was mostly parietal on the right side where the scalp and skull
had been blown out.
Taking advantage of the fact that none of the BOH scalp (the BOH skull was
fragmented with gaps between the pieces and the scalp was torn creating
the infamous BOH wound) was "missing" they stretched that BOH scalp to
help cover up the right-parietal area where the scalp "was missing". In
the BOH images you can see the autopsist is holding a small handfull of
scalp over the area [right-parietal]where the scalp and skull had been
blown out....I strongly believe that small handfull of scalp came (was
stretched) from the occipital.
So the images they show with an intact BOH scalp may not necessarily have
been taken to decieve...but just to show the entry after the scalp had
been stretched forward to close the right-parietal opening for the
open-casket funeral.
Also, with the BOH scalp tear sutured closed when they took those images,
the entry was more perceptible.
As I implied before, though, I think there was some deception going on,
i.e. no photos of the BOH when the body was first received nor any of the
BOH as soon as the scalp had been reflected, not to mention them leaving
the fact they had seen cerebellum when the body was first received out
of--and understating the extent of the occipital damage ["somewhat"]
in--the autopsy report. I would also include in any discussion about
autopsy-related deception the fact that certain important witnesses were
not asked to testify before the WC, e.g. O'Neill, Custer, Stringer,
Burkley, Ebersole, to name a few.
>And that they did so not because there was actual evidence of an exit
>wound of a grassy knoll shot, but because "collateral damage" might
>have been open to the GN interpertation?
That's pretty much what I think.
>If this is correct - and please feel free to clarify - I remain
>skeptical of the motive.
>In other words, the manipulation from the "late" photo session is
>extremely believable to me, but doing so merely because someone
>"might" interperet honest photos and autopsy report seems - to me at
>least - an overreaction, to say the least, and somewhat pointless as
>the photos were unlikely to surface.
Have you read all you can from the record about Admiral Burkley? The
picture I get from what I've read is that he was paranoid, some what
out-of-control during the autopsy, but taking charge anyway, and--like
adding a spark to gasoline--evidenty a conspiracy (multiple shooter)
believer until he died.
Thereore, I don't think you can assume everything that was done during the
autopsy was based on rational thinking....and that's not to say all
CTs--or even yu fence-sitters--are irrational.
Oh, I also think it was Burkley's brainstorm to have Ebersole add the 6.5
mm opacity to the AP X-ray (to move the entry up so that it seemed more
consistent--than Humes' low entry--with the fatal shot being fired from
the SN). As you may recall, both Custer and Ebersole testified Ebersole
was summoned to the White House after the assassination....precisely where
Burkley had his office.
>In other words there wasn't a need to falsify the evidence - unless of
>course the evidence DID lead somewhere they didn't want it to go.
IMO, by the time the autopsy was going on, there hadn't been enough time
to get a grip on where the evidence was going....I doubt anyone with any
brains would bet much there had been only one shooter and no conspiracy.
They certainly knew one thing--that pictures of a BOH wound could be
interpreted or misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shooter. And
there's no way they could know for sure when the photos would be released.
On that point note that Hues said [not his exact words] the pictures would
clarify some of his unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous entries in the
autopsy report...so when he said that he must have thought the pictures
would be available at least in the not-too-distant future.
>And of course with your theory the photo - since it isn't tampered
>with - shows the body as it was in Parkland & Bethesda.
>But with your theory the head wound itself was tampered with, eh?
Not really "tampered with"...they needed to repair the head anyway for an
open-casket funeral.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net