Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why the ER doctors belief that JFK's throat wound was an entrance should carry no weight
287 views
Skip to first unread message
JE Corbett
Nov 23, 2023, 12:27:19 AM11/23/23
to
CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound. For starters, most gunshot victims are shot by handguns. While
full metal jacket bullets are available for handguns, they are most commonly
used for recreational and competition shooting. They are not the best choice
for self defense and not normally used in criminal activity. Soft lead and
hollow point ammo is most often used for those purposes. Such bullets
deform on impact, even when hitting soft tissue. They are also less likely
to exit the body as was the case with the round Jack Ruby fired into Oswald.
When such ammo does exit a body, it will be deformed and is not going to
produce a neat, round exit wound like a full metal jacket bullet would. It is
therefore not surprising that the ER team would believe the neat round
bullet hole in JFK's throat was an entrance wound because they likely had
little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets.
experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound. For starters, most gunshot victims are shot by handguns. While
full metal jacket bullets are available for handguns, they are most commonly
used for recreational and competition shooting. They are not the best choice
for self defense and not normally used in criminal activity. Soft lead and
hollow point ammo is most often used for those purposes. Such bullets
deform on impact, even when hitting soft tissue. They are also less likely
to exit the body as was the case with the round Jack Ruby fired into Oswald.
When such ammo does exit a body, it will be deformed and is not going to
produce a neat, round exit wound like a full metal jacket bullet would. It is
therefore not surprising that the ER team would believe the neat round
bullet hole in JFK's throat was an entrance wound because they likely had
little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets.
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 23, 2023, 1:28:25 AM11/23/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 23, 2023, 4:43:44 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Source ?
> experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> It is therefore not surprising that the ER team would believe the neat round
> bullet hole in JFK's throat was an entrance wound because they likely had
> little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets.
Was WWII fought with soft rounds fired from handguns ?
They "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" ?
Wanna try that again ?
You claim that Governor Connally's wounds were made by CE 399, a FMJ bullet.
Did these doctors who you claim "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" correctly identify
the entrance and exit wounds on Governor Connally ?
Idiot.
Gil Jesus
Nov 23, 2023, 4:44:36 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:28:25 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Corbett reveals his depravity here by dismissing experts who don't say what he wants to hear.
He's a fucking idiot. And every time he posts he proves it.
> Corbett reveals his depravity here by dismissing experts who don't say what he wants to hear.
Bud
Nov 23, 2023, 5:28:35 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 4:43:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> > experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> > not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> Source ?
What is your source that Parkland doctors *ever* correctly identified a bullet entrance or exit?
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> > experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> > not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> Source ?
> > It is therefore not surprising that the ER team would believe the neat round
> > bullet hole in JFK's throat was an entrance wound because they likely had
> > little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets.
> Really ? Did any of these doctors serve in the military during World War II ?
> Was WWII fought with soft rounds fired from handguns ?
> They "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" ?
> Wanna try that again ?
>
> You claim that Governor Connally's wounds were made by CE 399, a FMJ bullet.
>
> Did these doctors who you claim "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" correctly identify
> the entrance and exit wounds on Governor Connally ?
> Idiot.
Bud
Nov 23, 2023, 5:29:05 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:28:25 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
Bud
Nov 23, 2023, 5:35:34 AM11/23/23
to
In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone. But then there are the outliers. You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 23, 2023, 5:37:46 AM11/23/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 23, 2023, 6:19:18 AM11/23/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 23, 2023, 6:36:11 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
What reasoning ? I've already called him on it.
> He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
>
> In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone.
>You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
Even if they didn't have experience in exit wounds, they sure as hell had experience in ENTRANCE wounds.
Nurse Margaret Henchliffe testified that, "we take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there." ( 6 H 141 )
Dr. Charles Gregory testified that, "here at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas, our service has attended a considerable amount of such injuries."
He added that personally, he had experience with "approximately 500 such missile wounds." ( 6 H 96 )
The point that Corbett tries to make that the doctors didn't know what an exit wound looked like is laughable.
He's implying that they considered every wound an entrance wound. But he offers no proof to back up that claim.
They didn't describe the wound as an exit wound.
They described it as an ENTRANCE wound. And they had plenty of experience with those.
These doctors were experienced in gunshot wounds and knew what an entrance wound looked like.
And the fact is that you can't refute that.
Bud
Nov 23, 2023, 7:30:41 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 6:36:11 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
> What reasoning ?
I know, you see reasoning like dogs see color.
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
> What reasoning ?
>I've already called him on it.
> >
> > In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone.
> Then what's the problem ?
> >You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
> Doctors have to determine which way the bullet was travelling in order to determine which internal organs were struck.
> Even if they didn't have experience in exit wounds, they sure as hell had experience in ENTRANCE wounds.
> Nurse Margaret Henchliffe testified that, "we take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there." ( 6 H 141 )
Exactly what examination did they perform to determine the "ins" and "outs" of the wounds? And how would this information aid them in treating those wounds?
> Dr. Charles Gregory testified that, "here at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas, our service has attended a considerable amount of such injuries."
> He added that personally, he had experience with "approximately 500 such missile wounds." ( 6 H 96 )
I`ve quoted Parkland doctors testifying that they are not experts in the relevant fields many times, you idiots just ignore inconvenient information.
From six years ago...
Senator COOPER - I would just ask this question. In your long experience
of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have you
acquired, through that. knowledge of ballistics and characteristics of
bullets?
Dr. GREGORY - Within a very limited sphere.
He realizes that just seeing a great deal of bullet holes doesn`t convey a great deal of knowledge of wound ballistics.
And Dr Shaw had this to say...
Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics
is just that of an average layman, no more.
He also realizes that wound ballistics is a completely different field than his.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uki0CzP23cU/m/-cPt_SgACwAJ
> The point that Corbett tries to make that the doctors didn't know what an exit wound looked like is laughable.
His point was that this wasn`t the usual bullet wounds they would commonly see, giving even more reason (as if any more was necessary) to disregard their assessments about "ins and outs".
> He's implying that they considered every wound an entrance wound. But he offers no proof to back up that claim.
> They didn't describe the wound as an exit wound.
> They described it as an ENTRANCE wound. And they had plenty of experience with those.
> These doctors were experienced in gunshot wounds and knew what an entrance wound looked like.
> And the fact is that you can't refute that.
JE Corbett
Nov 23, 2023, 8:54:36 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 4:43:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> > experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> > not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> Source ?
This requires reasoning, Giltardo. That leaves you out.
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> > experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> > not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> Source ?
> > It is therefore not surprising that the ER team would believe the neat round
> > bullet hole in JFK's throat was an entrance wound because they likely had
> > little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets.
> Really ? Did any of these doctors serve in the military during World War II ?
Do you really think they served in a WWII MASH unit? If you're going to make
such an idiotic suggestion, the burden is on you to establish that any member
of the ER team had served in a WII MASH unit.
> Was WWII fought with soft rounds fired from handguns ?
> They "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" ?
> Wanna try that again ?
>
> You claim that Governor Connally's wounds were made by CE 399, a FMJ bullet.
Because it was.
> You claim that Governor Connally's wounds were made by CE 399, a FMJ bullet.
>
> Did these doctors who you claim "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" correctly identify
> the entrance and exit wounds on Governor Connally ?
>
> Idiot.
Whether they did or didn't doesn't establish expertise in this area. Being right 50% of the time doesn't establish one as an
> Did these doctors who you claim "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" correctly identify
> the entrance and exit wounds on Governor Connally ?
>
> Idiot.
expert. It would have been quite easy to establish his chest wound as the exit since it blew out a section of his fifth rib.
Unlike you, they had the ability to reason. They saw a small round wound in his throat and since they never looked at his
back, they were unaware there was also a small round hole there. They also had no information about where the evidence
indicated the shots were fired from. Given they had minimal information, it is not surprising they reached the wrong
conclusion regarding the throat wound.
Once again, Giltardo responds not with answers or arguments but with asinine questions. It's his way of diverting away from
the points raised so he doesn't have to deal with them. He knows the ER team would have had little to no experience with
treating victims shot with FMJ bullets so he resorts to diversion. He can't come up with argument of his own so he responds
with questions. If he thinks he is going to change the historical narrative this this pathetic tactic, he's an even bigger idiot than
I thought.
JE Corbett
Nov 23, 2023, 9:06:50 AM11/23/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 6:36:11 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
> What reasoning ? I've already called him on it.
You exposed yourself as the dumbest fuck in this group. Given the CTs you are up against. That's quite an accomplishment.
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
> What reasoning ? I've already called him on it.
> >
> > In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone.
> Then what's the problem ?
> >You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
> Doctors have to determine which way the bullet was travelling in order to determine which internal organs were struck.
>
> Even if they didn't have experience in exit wounds, they sure as hell had experience in ENTRANCE wounds.
>
> Nurse Margaret Henchliffe testified that, "we take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there." ( 6 H 141 )
>
> Dr. Charles Gregory testified that, "here at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas, our service has attended a considerable amount of such injuries."
> He added that personally, he had experience with "approximately 500 such missile wounds." ( 6 H 96 )
>
> The point that Corbett tries to make that the doctors didn't know what an exit wound looked like is laughable.
> He's implying that they considered every wound an entrance wound. But he offers no proof to back up that claim.
> They didn't describe the wound as an exit wound.
> They described it as an ENTRANCE wound. And they had plenty of experience with those.
> These doctors were experienced in gunshot wounds and knew what an entrance wound looked like.
> And the fact is that you can't refute that.
I have implied nothing. I stated flatly that they would have had little to no experience treating gunshot victims shot
> > In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone.
> Then what's the problem ?
> >You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
> Doctors have to determine which way the bullet was travelling in order to determine which internal organs were struck.
>
> Even if they didn't have experience in exit wounds, they sure as hell had experience in ENTRANCE wounds.
>
> Nurse Margaret Henchliffe testified that, "we take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there." ( 6 H 141 )
>
> Dr. Charles Gregory testified that, "here at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas, our service has attended a considerable amount of such injuries."
> He added that personally, he had experience with "approximately 500 such missile wounds." ( 6 H 96 )
>
> The point that Corbett tries to make that the doctors didn't know what an exit wound looked like is laughable.
> He's implying that they considered every wound an entrance wound. But he offers no proof to back up that claim.
> They didn't describe the wound as an exit wound.
> They described it as an ENTRANCE wound. And they had plenty of experience with those.
> These doctors were experienced in gunshot wounds and knew what an entrance wound looked like.
> And the fact is that you can't refute that.
with FMJ ammo because that kind of ammo is not typically used in handguns favored by the criminal element.
Police us soft nose ammo because they don't want their bullets to exit and possibly strike innocent bystanders.
Handguns are also less likely to produce exit wounds because they lack the penetrating power of rifles. It is extremely
rare for murders to be committed with rifles. How rare? More people are murdered with bare hands and feet than with
all rifles combined. This has come up frequently on the other discussion group I participate in which is on the politics
of guns. People wanting to ban AR-15s have no idea how few murders are committed with all rifles and AR-15s are
just a fraction of that total.
JE Corbett
Nov 23, 2023, 9:09:02 AM11/23/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 24, 2023, 4:46:28 AM11/24/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
His words, not mine.
Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
You and Corbett are the fucking idiots who can't provide proof for your argument, not me.
JE Corbett
Nov 24, 2023, 8:18:32 AM11/24/23
to
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:46:28 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
>
> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> His words, not mine.
> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
> That statement is the result of sound reasoning so it is not surprising you are unable to follow along. Almost all gunshot
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
>
> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> His words, not mine.
> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
victims in urban areas are shot by handguns. The people who shoot these victims are cops, criminals, and those firing in self
defense. FMJ bullets are unlikely to be the choice for any of these people since they have less stopping power than soft nose
bullets. That is why it is a reasonable conclusion that few if any of the people treated by the ER team at Parkland had been
shot by FMJ rounds.
>
> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
>
> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
>
> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
>
> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
They were only slightly larger, Gil.
> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
>
> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
>
> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
>
> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
>
> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
Every qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the medical evidence disagrees with your conclusion. Tell us why your
> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
opinion should carry more weight than theirs.
>
> You and Corbett are the fucking idiots who can't provide proof for your argument, not me.
The opinions of experts in a given field are valid evidence. Your opinions are not. The unanimous opinion of experts in the
> You and Corbett are the fucking idiots who can't provide proof for your argument, not me.
field of forensic pathology is that a bullet entered JFK's back and exited from his throat. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht believes that
to be true. I'll trust the experts on this one.
Gil Jesus
Nov 24, 2023, 8:39:32 AM11/24/23
to
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
< his usual bullshit comments with no evidence >
You admit that the exit wounds in the test were only "slightly larger " than the entrance wounds.
According to the autopsy report, the entrance wound in the President's back was measured at 7 mm. ( 16 H 980 )
How large was the exit wound in the President's throat ?
< his usual bullshit comments with no evidence >
You admit that the exit wounds in the test were only "slightly larger " than the entrance wounds.
According to the autopsy report, the entrance wound in the President's back was measured at 7 mm. ( 16 H 980 )
How large was the exit wound in the President's throat ?
JE Corbett
Nov 24, 2023, 9:09:36 AM11/24/23
to
As is your custom, when faced with inconvenient facts for which you have no rebuttal, you resort to diversion by raising
asinine questions.
Gil Jesus
Nov 24, 2023, 9:42:21 AM11/24/23
to
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> It was never measured, dumbass.
Then how do you know it was an exit wound, dumbass ?
> It was never measured, dumbass.
How do you get off saying it's an exit wound without even knowing if it's larger than the entrance wound ?
Fucking idiot.
Gil Jesus
Nov 24, 2023, 9:43:38 AM11/24/23
to
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> As is your custom, when faced with inconvenient facts for which you have no rebuttal, you resort to diversion by raising
> asinine questions.
I've rebutted everything you've said.
>
> As is your custom, when faced with inconvenient facts for which you have no rebuttal, you resort to diversion by raising
> asinine questions.
It's all here:
https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/
JE Corbett
Nov 24, 2023, 10:11:03 AM11/24/23
to
answer lies somewhere within and expect the other guy to go find the answer. This is nothing more than a crutch used by
people who are unable to articulate an argument. I've seen this cowardly ploy used over and over again by people on other
forums about other topics. In one extreme example in a discussion of climate change, I asked a person a very specific
question about a claim he made and he responded with a link to a 900+ page IPCC report and told me the answer was
somewhere within the report. The reality is he has no idea whether the report contained an answer to my question or not.
It was just his way of dodging a question for which he had no answer. You are doing the same thing by linking to your website
and telling me to go find the answer. If your website actually contains a specific rebuttal to the points I made, you should
know where that is and be able to copy and paste it in your reply. Instead you will try to shift the burden by telling me to go
find what you can't.
JE Corbett
Nov 24, 2023, 10:23:07 AM11/24/23
to
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:42:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > It was never measured, dumbass.
> Then how do you know it was an exit wound, dumbass ?
Because that is what every qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the medical evidence has concluded. Unlike you,
> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > It was never measured, dumbass.
> Then how do you know it was an exit wound, dumbass ?
I'm not dumb enough to think I can reach a better conclusion than they have.
> How do you get off saying it's an exit wound without even knowing if it's larger than the entrance wound ?
>
have differing characteristics. The forensic examiners could not examine the throat wound since it had been obliterated but
they did determine that the back wound was definitely an entrance. The internal organs had been eviscerated (removed)
from the thoracic cavity and they saw the photos of the tissue damage leading from that back wound to the throat wound.
That allowed them to conclude conclusively the throat wound was the exit for the bullet that entered the back. This is
another example of competent people using reasoning to reach correct conclusions, a process that is foreign to you.
JE Corbett
Nov 24, 2023, 10:25:17 AM11/24/23
to
that a bullet entered JFK's back and exited from his throat. Nothing in your diatribe even attempted to address that. It is just
a feeble attempt to impugn the integrity of Dr. Perry.
Bud
Nov 24, 2023, 3:36:33 PM11/24/23
to
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:46:28 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
Your running from the points I made is noted. You are always crying that we don`t post evidence, I posted testimony from Parkland doctors and you removed it. For all you hot air about "the evidence", when it goes against your silly ideas you just pretend it doesn`t exist.
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> His words, not mine.
>
> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
In any case, here is a forensic source...
"Most bullets are designed to hit the target without exiting, for this imparts all the bullet's KE to the target and does the most damage."
https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html#1
> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it would. You mean in the target?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
>
> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
>
> You and Corbett are the fucking idiots who can't provide proof for your argument, not me.
recip...@gmail.com
Nov 25, 2023, 10:03:14 PM11/25/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 3:43:44 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> > experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> > not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> Source ?
Back in the early 1990s, JAMA published a study by Vince DiMaio, CME of Bexar
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
> > experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
> > not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
> Source ?
county Texas (ie, San Antonio) regarding the accuracy of ER staff at identifying
entry and exit wounds. It should be noted that DiMaio is the guy who literally
wrote the book on GSWs --it's even titled "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of
Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques."
DiMaio and his co-authors found that ER staff could correctly identify entry and
exit about 67% of the time in single-shot cases, and 50% in multiple-shot cases.
If this sounds good to you, consider that they had a binary choice --entry or exit--
and would be expected to achieve 50% accuracy just by flipping a coin.
> > It is therefore not surprising that the ER team would believe the neat round
> > bullet hole in JFK's throat was an entrance wound because they likely had
> > little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets.
>
> Really ? Did any of these doctors serve in the military during World War II ?
> Was WWII fought with soft rounds fired from handguns ?
> They "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" ?
> Wanna try that again ?
of a rear-area specialist surgery center in Paris, well behind the front lines.
Gregory did a second stint with the Navy during the Korean War, supporting the
1st Marine Division, which would have made it either a field hospital position,
or the next level behind that. Of the two, Gregory would have wound up with
more experience directly treating GSWs. It shows in the record. Shaw initially
thought that the bullet that fractured Connally's radius went from the palm side
to the dorsal side. Gregory was able to set Shaw straight, as Shaw himself
admitted.
> You claim that Governor Connally's wounds were made by CE 399, a FMJ bullet.
>
> Did these doctors who you claim "had little to no experience with exit wounds produced by FMJ bullets" correctly identify
> the entrance and exit wounds on Governor Connally ?
was pretty obvious. Gregory got the wrist wound right. Shires and Gregory
got the thigh wound right, but that was a gimme. There was only one thigh
wound, so it could only have been the entry. Shaw, however, assumed that
there was a bullet still in the thigh, which he announced at his part in the
Parkland press conference. This turned out to not be true. So Shaw only
gets a 1.5 out of 3 score.
recip...@gmail.com
Nov 25, 2023, 10:23:28 PM11/25/23
to
That being said, the Edgewood Arsenal tests weren't set up to test the throat exit very well. The first thing I should mention is that the last organ that the bullet passed through before leaving was JFK's trachea. The trachea is both rigid and hollow. Goat meat is neither. The hollow rigidity of the trachea is going to greatly reduce cavitation at the exit, which is going to reduce the amount of tensile failure at the exit quite a bit. More importantly, the bullet exited just below the collar band. tight clothing like closed shirt collars, ties, bras, belts, etc. tend to cause what is called a "shored" exit wound. These are much smaller than normal exits since the fabric supports the skin around the exits, which again limits the amount of tensile failure at the exit site.
Lattimer demonstrated the effects of exit shoring in his book Kennedy and Lincoln. The shored exits he got were *very* small.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 26, 2023, 12:25:37 AM11/26/23
to
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Lattimer
“During World War II, Dr. Lattimer served as an army physician and treated D-Day casualties in the field.”
Why is this important?
Gil Jesus above inquires about the military service of the doctors treating JFK and Connally.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/GkalEbeJ__A/m/BIOZPwoZAQAJ
“Did any of these doctors serve in the military during World War II ?”
Presumably, Gil meant to suggest that WWII military service treating wounded soldiers made those doctors experts in diagnosing entrance wounds from exit wounds. He doesn't establish that, he just assumes it.
But of course, because Lattimer believed Oswald was the lone gunman, generally accepted the Warren Commission’s conclusions, and also at his own expense performed experiments to test and/or demonstrate what was probable or possible, critics generally denigrate him as a “piss doctor”, because his post-war specialty was urology. They never think to mention the specialties of the doctors who saw JFK’s neck wound before the tracheostomy was performed.
So we see the critics double-standard once more. Dismiss for whatever reasons they can dream up experts whose opinions they disagree with, accept opinions from non-experts they agree with (or put forward their own opinions as valid).
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 26, 2023, 1:05:42 AM11/26/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 26, 2023, 4:30:23 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:05:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Well, of course Nutters prefer the opinions of easy chair urologists to the observations of surgeons who actually saw JFK's body at Parkland. Nutter Logic is a wondrous thing!
Their fucking experts ( the autopsists ) didn't even see the bullet wound in the throat.
> Well, of course Nutters prefer the opinions of easy chair urologists to the observations of surgeons who actually saw JFK's body at Parkland. Nutter Logic is a wondrous thing!
Some experts.
ROFLMAO
Hank Sienzant
Nov 26, 2023, 6:38:11 AM11/26/23
to
What I did was compare was how conspiracy theorists like yourself treat someone who supports the Warren Commission findings versus how they treat anyone who doesn't.
You did that above, providing an excellent example of exactly what I was describing.
You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland. He also had a lifelong interest in the case, performing experiments designed to test the conclusions of the Commission.
So I thank you for that example. Can you think of any others?
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 26, 2023, 7:13:04 AM11/26/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 26, 2023, 8:03:15 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
> You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> He also had a lifelong interest in the case, performing experiments designed to test the conclusions of the Commission.
Completely bogus.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
In your world, a Urologist is an expert on weapons and gunshot wounds, but the opinion of an expert in his field, like forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, isn't worth shit.
That's just brilliant, Hank.
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 26, 2023, 8:07:18 AM11/26/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 26, 2023, 8:14:16 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Well, Hank might have a point. Anybody who can stick his finger up your ass and tell you whether or not you have cancer, must have some kind of magical powers.
Maybe Hank knows something we don't know, like maybe Kennedy got shot in the penis.
> Well, Hank might have a point. Anybody who can stick his finger up your ass and tell you whether or not you have cancer, must have some kind of magical powers.
Maybe Lattimer had massive experience treating gunshot wounds of the penis.
Then I would consider him an expert in gunshot wounds of the penis.
JE Corbett
Nov 26, 2023, 8:57:35 AM11/26/23
to
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:23:28 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:46:28 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
> >
> > Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> > His words, not mine.
> >
> > Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
> >
> > The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
> > They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
> >
> > The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
> >
> > Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
> >
> > As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
> >
> > Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
> The 3-5mm number is an estimate by Perry ascertained by eyeballing the thing. How good is he at measuring using a Mk I eyeball?
Especially given that blood was still oozing from the wound.
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
> >
> > Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> > His words, not mine.
> >
> > Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
> >
> > The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
> > They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
> >
> > The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
> >
> > Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
> >
> > As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
> >
> > Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
> The 3-5mm number is an estimate by Perry ascertained by eyeballing the thing. How good is he at measuring using a Mk I eyeball?
>
> That being said, the Edgewood Arsenal tests weren't set up to test the throat exit very well. The first thing I should mention is that the last organ that the bullet passed through before leaving was JFK's trachea. The trachea is both rigid and hollow. Goat meat is neither. The hollow rigidity of the trachea is going to greatly reduce cavitation at the exit, which is going to reduce the amount of tensile failure at the exit quite a bit. More importantly, the bullet exited just below the collar band. tight clothing like closed shirt collars, ties, bras, belts, etc. tend to cause what is called a "shored" exit wound. These are much smaller than normal exits since the fabric supports the skin around the exits, which again limits the amount of tensile failure at the exit site.
>
> Lattimer demonstrated the effects of exit shoring in his book Kennedy and Lincoln. The shored exits he got were *very* small.
Stop confusing Gitardo with facts. It make his head hurt.
> That being said, the Edgewood Arsenal tests weren't set up to test the throat exit very well. The first thing I should mention is that the last organ that the bullet passed through before leaving was JFK's trachea. The trachea is both rigid and hollow. Goat meat is neither. The hollow rigidity of the trachea is going to greatly reduce cavitation at the exit, which is going to reduce the amount of tensile failure at the exit quite a bit. More importantly, the bullet exited just below the collar band. tight clothing like closed shirt collars, ties, bras, belts, etc. tend to cause what is called a "shored" exit wound. These are much smaller than normal exits since the fabric supports the skin around the exits, which again limits the amount of tensile failure at the exit site.
>
> Lattimer demonstrated the effects of exit shoring in his book Kennedy and Lincoln. The shored exits he got were *very* small.
JE Corbett
Nov 26, 2023, 9:14:36 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
Read for comprehension, Giltardo. He told you he was also a battlefield surgeon. Why do you always ignore the inconvenient
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
facts?
> > He also had a lifelong interest in the case, performing experiments designed to test the conclusions of the Commission.
> Your "expert" Lattimer also participated in a phony display for the BBC/ABC of how Oswald could have fired three shots in 8.5 seconds by dry firing a rifle at a stationary spot on the wall.
> Completely bogus.
was the one done in Oliver Stone's shitass movie. Garrison (Costner) and his assistant were in the sniper's nest with a Carcano.
The assistant tells Costner, "I'm Oswald. Time me.". He then proceeds to dry fire three shot. Garrison timed it at over 7 seconds,
supposedly proving Oswald could not have fired three shots in less than six seconds. Never mind that the WC never concluded
he had. If you actually time the sequence yourself, it was done in under six seconds.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
>
> In your world, a Urologist is an expert on weapons and gunshot wounds, but the opinion of an expert in his field, like forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, isn't worth shit.
Cyril Wecht's expert opinion is that the medical evidence indicates the bullet that struck JFK in the back was the same one
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
>
> In your world, a Urologist is an expert on weapons and gunshot wounds, but the opinion of an expert in his field, like forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, isn't worth shit.
that exited from his throat. Why would you cite an expert that refutes what you want to believe? He also believes a bullet
struck JFK in the BACK of the head. He believes these things because the medical evidence is conclusive about them. His
belief that there was a second gunman is not based on his medical expertise. It is based on his viewing of the Z-film which is
a layman's opinion since he has no more expertise in film analysis than anybody else.
> That's just brilliant, Hank.
medical examiners in the country. <chuckle>
Isn't it funny how Giltardo rejects the opinions of people who have actual expertise and experience in the field of forensic
medicine and then turns around and spouts off his opinions on the same subject as if they matter.
JE Corbett
Nov 26, 2023, 9:15:54 AM11/26/23
to
JE Corbett
Nov 26, 2023, 9:19:14 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
None, asshole. The connection was between Lattimer's experience as a battlefield surgeon and gunshot wounds. You know.
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
the part of Hank's statement that you ignored.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 26, 2023, 9:28:21 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
What part of “neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition” did you think was not important to take into account, Gil?
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
What was Perry’s specialty post-assassination, Gil? Vascular surgery. What’s the connection between vascular surgery and gunshot wounds?
You are proving my point. Thank you. Here it is again:
“So we see the critics double-standard once more. Dismiss for whatever reasons they can dream up experts whose opinions they disagree with, accept opinions from non-experts they agree with (or put forward their own opinions as valid).”
Do you have any other examples of critics denigrating those who disagree with them?
> > He also had a lifelong interest in the case, performing experiments designed to test the conclusions of the Commission.
> Your "expert" Lattimer also participated in a phony display for the BBC/ABC of how Oswald could have fired three shots in 8.5 seconds by dry firing a rifle at a stationary spot on the wall.
> Completely bogus.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
>
> In your world, a Urologist is an expert on weapons and gunshot wounds, but the opinion of an expert in his field, like forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, isn't worth shit.
> That's just brilliant, Hank.
Returning to Wecht, what part(s) of the magic bullet theory did Wecht disagree with, specifically, Gil?
Make your case. Let's see if it holds up under scrutiny.
recip...@gmail.com
Nov 26, 2023, 10:57:46 AM11/26/23
to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 7:03:15 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
> > He also had a lifelong interest in the case, performing experiments designed to test the conclusions of the Commission.
> Your "expert" Lattimer also participated in a phony display for the BBC/ABC of how Oswald could have fired three shots in 8.5 seconds by dry firing a rifle at a stationary spot on the wall.
> Completely bogus.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
The knock on t he WC/HSCA timing was that a Carcano can't be cycled fast enough to account for the shots. All Lattimer needed to do was cycle and aim a Carcano within the HSCA'a allotted timeframe, which he did.
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
> > He also had a lifelong interest in the case, performing experiments designed to test the conclusions of the Commission.
> Your "expert" Lattimer also participated in a phony display for the BBC/ABC of how Oswald could have fired three shots in 8.5 seconds by dry firing a rifle at a stationary spot on the wall.
> Completely bogus.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
BTW, in your video, about 7:00 in, you show an image of what you call "Typical steel-jacketed bullets." That's not a photograph of any physical objects, it's a CGI rendering of what someone thinks rifle cartridges look like. In reality, bullets don't (and can't for manufacturing reasons) come to such sharp points. Nor are they mirror-grade shiny. Also, to prevent rust --no one wants to shoot a rusty bullet-- the steel jackets are covered with something else to prevent this corrosion. In the West, this was (and still is) done by plating the outer surface of the bullet with copper or brass. The Soviets and their allies instead coated the entire case in a dull colored lacquer. Then again, the Sovskiis were really fond of steel in their ammunition: steel jackets, steel cases, steel cores....I guess you have to expect that from a place led by a guy who renamed himself Joe Steel.
> In your world, a Urologist is an expert on weapons and gunshot wounds, but the opinion of an expert in his field, like forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, isn't worth shit.
> That's just brilliant, Hank.
Ben Holmes
Nov 27, 2023, 7:42:50 PM11/27/23
to
On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 21:25:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
Nov 28, 2023, 2:35:17 PM11/28/23
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 06:09:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A very thorough job of demolishing the idiotic Giltardo's suggestions. Two thumbs up.
Can't be done by lying.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A very thorough job of demolishing the idiotic Giltardo's suggestions. Two thumbs up.
Can't be done by lying.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2023, 12:43:34 PM11/29/23
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:25:16 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:43:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Is a lie.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:43:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>
>>> As is your custom, when faced with inconvenient facts for which you have no rebuttal, you resort to diversion by raising
>>> asinine questions.
>> I've rebutted everything you've said.
>> It's all here:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/
>
>My primary argument ...
>>>
>>> As is your custom, when faced with inconvenient facts for which you have no rebuttal, you resort to diversion by raising
>>> asinine questions.
>> I've rebutted everything you've said.
>> It's all here:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/
>
Is a lie.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2023, 2:10:39 PM11/29/23
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:23:05 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:42:21?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:42:21?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> It was never measured, dumbass.
>> Then how do you know it was an exit wound, dumbass ?
Logical fallacy deleted.
>>> It was never measured, dumbass.
>> Then how do you know it was an exit wound, dumbass ?
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2023, 12:56:05 PM11/30/23
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 05:54:34 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 4:43:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Then you're out.
Nor does it require reasoning, it only requires the truth you're
afraid of.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 4:43:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:27:19?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
>>> experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
>>> not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
>> Source ?
>
>This requires reasoning...
>>> CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
>>> experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true. It does
>>> not follow that they would be able to distinguish an entrance wound from an exit wound.
>> Source ?
>
Then you're out.
Nor does it require reasoning, it only requires the truth you're
afraid of.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2023, 2:00:51 PM11/30/23
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 03:38:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2023, 3:53:24 PM11/30/23
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 05:57:33 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:23:28?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:46:28?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> That being said, the Edgewood Arsenal tests weren't set up to test the throat exit very well. The first thing I should mention is that the last organ that the bullet passed through before leaving was JFK's trachea. The trachea is both rigid and hollow. Goat meat is neither. The hollow rigidity of the trachea is going to greatly reduce cavitation at the exit, which is going to reduce the amount of tensile failure at the exit quite a bit. More importantly, the bullet exited just below the collar band. tight clothing like closed shirt collars, ties, bras, belts, etc. tend to cause what is called a "shored" exit wound. These are much smaller than normal exits since the fabric supports the skin around the exits, which again limits the amount of tensile failure at the exit site.
>>
>> Lattimer demonstrated the effects of exit shoring in his book Kennedy and Lincoln. The shored exits he got were *very* small.
>
>Stop confusing Gitardo with facts. It make his head hurt.
Here's a fact for you - the wound wasn't "shored" - it was above the
collar.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:23:28?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:46:28?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
>>>
>>> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
>>> His words, not mine.
>>>
>>> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
>>>
>>> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
>>> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
>>>
>>> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
>>>
>>> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
>>>
>>> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
>>>
>>> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
>> The 3-5mm number is an estimate by Perry ascertained by eyeballing the thing. How good is he at measuring using a Mk I eyeball?
>
>Especially given that blood was still oozing from the wound.
Doctors are too stupid to be able to wipe the oozing blood?
>>> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
>>>
>>> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
>>> His words, not mine.
>>>
>>> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
>>>
>>> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
>>> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
>>>
>>> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
>>>
>>> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
>>>
>>> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
>>>
>>> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
>> The 3-5mm number is an estimate by Perry ascertained by eyeballing the thing. How good is he at measuring using a Mk I eyeball?
>
>Especially given that blood was still oozing from the wound.
>> That being said, the Edgewood Arsenal tests weren't set up to test the throat exit very well. The first thing I should mention is that the last organ that the bullet passed through before leaving was JFK's trachea. The trachea is both rigid and hollow. Goat meat is neither. The hollow rigidity of the trachea is going to greatly reduce cavitation at the exit, which is going to reduce the amount of tensile failure at the exit quite a bit. More importantly, the bullet exited just below the collar band. tight clothing like closed shirt collars, ties, bras, belts, etc. tend to cause what is called a "shored" exit wound. These are much smaller than normal exits since the fabric supports the skin around the exits, which again limits the amount of tensile failure at the exit site.
>>
>> Lattimer demonstrated the effects of exit shoring in his book Kennedy and Lincoln. The shored exits he got were *very* small.
>
>Stop confusing Gitardo with facts. It make his head hurt.
collar.
Bud
Nov 30, 2023, 4:16:35 PM11/30/23
to
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:53:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 05:57:33 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:23:28?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:46:28?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
> >>>
> >>> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> >>> His words, not mine.
> >>>
> >>> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
> >>>
> >>> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
> >>> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
> >>>
> >>> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
> >>>
> >>> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> >>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
> >>>
> >>> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
> >>>
> >>> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
> >> The 3-5mm number is an estimate by Perry ascertained by eyeballing the thing. How good is he at measuring using a Mk I eyeball?
> >
> >Especially given that blood was still oozing from the wound.
> Doctors are too stupid to be able to wipe the oozing blood?
Purpose?
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 05:57:33 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:23:28?PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:46:28?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:30:41?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>> < his usual bullshit of insults, comments, speculation and answering questions with questions >
> >>>
> >>> Corbett said that the Dallas doctors misidentified the throat wound as an entrance wound because "they likely had little to no experience with exit wound produced by FMJ bullets."
> >>> His words, not mine.
> >>>
> >>> Neither one of you has produced any evidence to prove that was so.
> >>>
> >>> The tests done for the Warren Commission showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit.
> >>> They showed that a bullet travelling through the President’s neck would have been already tumbling before it exited.
> >>>
> >>> The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Brach of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President’s neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President’s skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 )
> >>>
> >>> Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo’s effect on entering and exiting skin.
> >>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0436b.htm
> >>>
> >>> As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat described by the Dallas doctors could not have been made on exit by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in Kennedy's back.
> >>>
> >>> Which means the throat wound was NOT a wound of exit. The Warren Commission's own tests proved that.
> >> The 3-5mm number is an estimate by Perry ascertained by eyeballing the thing. How good is he at measuring using a Mk I eyeball?
> >
> >Especially given that blood was still oozing from the wound.
> Doctors are too stupid to be able to wipe the oozing blood?
> >> That being said, the Edgewood Arsenal tests weren't set up to test the throat exit very well. The first thing I should mention is that the last organ that the bullet passed through before leaving was JFK's trachea. The trachea is both rigid and hollow. Goat meat is neither. The hollow rigidity of the trachea is going to greatly reduce cavitation at the exit, which is going to reduce the amount of tensile failure at the exit quite a bit. More importantly, the bullet exited just below the collar band. tight clothing like closed shirt collars, ties, bras, belts, etc. tend to cause what is called a "shored" exit wound. These are much smaller than normal exits since the fabric supports the skin around the exits, which again limits the amount of tensile failure at the exit site.
> >>
> >> Lattimer demonstrated the effects of exit shoring in his book Kennedy and Lincoln. The shored exits he got were *very* small.
> >
> >Stop confusing Gitardo with facts. It make his head hurt.
> Here's a fact for you - the wound wasn't "shored" - it was above the
> collar.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2023, 4:20:59 PM11/30/23
to
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:16:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2023, 7:48:12 PM11/30/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 11:06:05 AM12/1/23
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:09:34 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:39:32?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:18:32?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> < his usual bullshit comments with no evidence >
>>
>> You admit that the exit wounds in the test were only "slightly larger " than the entrance wounds.
>> According to the autopsy report, the entrance wound in the President's back was measured at 7 mm. ( 16 H 980 )
>> How large was the exit wound in the President's throat ?
>
>It was never measured....
Coward, aren't you?
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:39:32?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:18:32?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> < his usual bullshit comments with no evidence >
>>
>> You admit that the exit wounds in the test were only "slightly larger " than the entrance wounds.
>> According to the autopsy report, the entrance wound in the President's back was measured at 7 mm. ( 16 H 980 )
>> How large was the exit wound in the President's throat ?
>
>It was never measured....
Coward, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 11:06:12 AM12/1/23
to
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 21:27:17 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
>experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true.
Acknowledging that we're right is a good start...
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>CTs like to argue that ER doctors in a big city hospital would likely have lots of
>experience treating victims of gunshot wounds and that much is true.
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 11:28:15 AM12/1/23
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:11:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:43:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>
A statement that Corbutt will NEVER make to Von Penis.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:43:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>
>>> As is your custom, when faced with inconvenient facts for which you have no rebuttal, you resort to diversion by raising
>>> asinine questions.
>> I've rebutted everything you've said.
>> It's all here:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/
>
>This is another ploy of yours. Citing your website.
>>> asinine questions.
>> I've rebutted everything you've said.
>> It's all here:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/
>
A statement that Corbutt will NEVER make to Von Penis.
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 12:32:06 PM12/1/23
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 06:28:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
David
Dec 1, 2023, 1:41:34 PM12/1/23
to
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 4:30:41 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 6:36:11 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
> > What reasoning ?
> I know, you see reasoning like dogs see color.
> >I've already called him on it.
> > >
> > > In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone.
> > Then what's the problem ?
> Read what Corbett wrote for comprehension. This was atypical ammunition fired from an atypical weapon.
> > >You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
> > Doctors have to determine which way the bullet was travelling in order to determine which internal organs were struck.
> You`re a fucking idiot. What bearing could the direction the bullet was traveling have on what organs are hit? You can shoot someone in the heart from the front or back.
all that grad school education got you that? Even an infantry grunt truck driver understands that.... you're out of control, and I'm sure Trump's woes have you in a mighty snit that effects rational thought... and, you could be dying of cancer, numbnuts.
As your attending "faux" PhD., retire while you can, you're on the edge...
So start with this, Dallas, Tx., Nov 22nd 1963 never happened, it was a b-movie, produced by Chucky Cheese Schuyler (Chuckles was pissed his FBI employment application was returned for lack of postage). Film was distributed by our own Corbi-Cobertt aka Madame Nhu... I know these things, I was in Cholon, So. Vietnam on that date...
> > Even if they didn't have experience in exit wounds, they sure as hell had experience in ENTRANCE wounds.
> You`re a fucking idiot. Experience doesn`t necessarily translate into expertise. I can go to the zoo every day and look at elephants, that won`t make me an expert on elephants. I may pick up a thing or two, but that wouldn`t make me an expert.
who gives a shit LHO was NOT tried, no matter how many times you fools run around your living room naked with a MC rifle in one hand and the 1964 WCR in another... c'mon, you nutter fools are looking for just another WCR pud pullin' contest, and you wankers are nearing 80 years old.... ROTFLMFAO
[... why waste the bandwidth]
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 6:36:11 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
> > What reasoning ?
> I know, you see reasoning like dogs see color.
> >I've already called him on it.
> > >
> > > In the most common gunshot wounds they would be familiar with, the entrances and exits would be easily discernable to just about anyone.
> > Then what's the problem ?
> Read what Corbett wrote for comprehension. This was atypical ammunition fired from an atypical weapon.
> > >You have the doctors doing what actual experts with training in the proper fields (wound ballistic experts or forensic experts) would never do, make a determination at a glance without a proper examination.
> > Doctors have to determine which way the bullet was travelling in order to determine which internal organs were struck.
> You`re a fucking idiot. What bearing could the direction the bullet was traveling have on what organs are hit? You can shoot someone in the heart from the front or back.
all that grad school education got you that? Even an infantry grunt truck driver understands that.... you're out of control, and I'm sure Trump's woes have you in a mighty snit that effects rational thought... and, you could be dying of cancer, numbnuts.
As your attending "faux" PhD., retire while you can, you're on the edge...
So start with this, Dallas, Tx., Nov 22nd 1963 never happened, it was a b-movie, produced by Chucky Cheese Schuyler (Chuckles was pissed his FBI employment application was returned for lack of postage). Film was distributed by our own Corbi-Cobertt aka Madame Nhu... I know these things, I was in Cholon, So. Vietnam on that date...
> > Even if they didn't have experience in exit wounds, they sure as hell had experience in ENTRANCE wounds.
> You`re a fucking idiot. Experience doesn`t necessarily translate into expertise. I can go to the zoo every day and look at elephants, that won`t make me an expert on elephants. I may pick up a thing or two, but that wouldn`t make me an expert.
who gives a shit LHO was NOT tried, no matter how many times you fools run around your living room naked with a MC rifle in one hand and the 1964 WCR in another... c'mon, you nutter fools are looking for just another WCR pud pullin' contest, and you wankers are nearing 80 years old.... ROTFLMFAO
[... why waste the bandwidth]
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 2:29:21 PM12/1/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 4:34:42 PM12/1/23
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 05:18:30 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They were only slightly larger, Gil.
You're lying again, Corbutt.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They were only slightly larger, Gil.
You're lying again, Corbutt.
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2023, 5:37:25 PM12/1/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 11:25:01 AM12/4/23
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 06:06:48 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 6:36:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>You exposed yourself ...
You can't refute the truth with lies...
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 6:36:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 5:35:34?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>> He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
>> What reasoning ? I've already called him on it.
>>> He is applying reasoning to information, and that is like fingernails on a blackboard to you.
>
>You exposed yourself ...
You can't refute the truth with lies...
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 3:51:13 PM12/4/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 3:51:17 PM12/4/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 4, 2023, 7:28:28 PM12/4/23
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 01:44:34 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:28:25?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> Corbett reveals his depravity here by dismissing experts who don't say what he wants to hear.
>
>He's a fucking idiot. And every time he posts he proves it.
Well, to be honest, he *started* with the truth.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:28:25?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> Corbett reveals his depravity here by dismissing experts who don't say what he wants to hear.
>
>He's a fucking idiot. And every time he posts he proves it.
Well, to be honest, he *started* with the truth.
Ben Holmes
Dec 5, 2023, 1:03:31 PM12/5/23
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 06:19:13 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
>> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
>
>None, asshole...
>>> You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
>> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
>
When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.
Ben Holmes
Dec 5, 2023, 1:03:36 PM12/5/23
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 06:14:34 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
>> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
>
>Read for comprehension, Giltardo...
>On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:03:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:38:11?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> You denigrated Lattimer as an "easy chair urologist", neglecting to mention he was a battlefield surgeon who actually saw and treated the types of wounds caused by jacketed ammunition. As such, he was far more experienced with those kinds of wounds than any of the doctors in Parkland.
>> Really ? What's the connection between urology and gunshot wounds ?
>
Ben Holmes
Dec 5, 2023, 1:03:41 PM12/5/23
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 06:15:52 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:14:16?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:07:18?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> > Well, Hank might have a point. Anybody who can stick his finger up your ass and tell you whether or not you have cancer, must have some kind of magical powers.
>> Maybe Hank knows something we don't know, like maybe Kennedy got shot in the penis.
>> Maybe Lattimer had massive experience treating gunshot wounds of the penis.
>> Then I would consider him an expert in gunshot wounds of the penis.
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:14:16?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:07:18?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> > Well, Hank might have a point. Anybody who can stick his finger up your ass and tell you whether or not you have cancer, must have some kind of magical powers.
>> Maybe Hank knows something we don't know, like maybe Kennedy got shot in the penis.
>> Maybe Lattimer had massive experience treating gunshot wounds of the penis.
>> Then I would consider him an expert in gunshot wounds of the penis.
0 new messages