Discussion:
Coagulation Necrosis and JFK's Head Wound
(too old to reply)
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-30 21:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.

But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'

In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.

'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'

'Yes, I would.'

'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'

All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'

So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.

(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)

Mark
bigdog
2018-07-31 14:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.

I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
n***@gmail.com
2018-08-01 03:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
bigdog
2018-08-02 02:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
You can lead a horse to water...

As for the well financed documentary, that was done by ABC News, I believe
on the 40th anniversary of the assassination. It was called Beyond
Conspiracy. It examined many of the popular conspiracy theories and
debunked them although not nearly as thoroughly as Bugliosi did. Here is
the original broadcast.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=JFK+Beyond+Conspiracy+ABC&&view=detail&mid=9FDED033EB0FA1B57C409FDED033EB0FA1B57C40&&FORM=VRDGAR

I also found this but I believe they just took the ABC program and
replaced Peter Jennings with their own narrator. I haven't watched it all
but the little bit I watched seemed to be the same.




While searching for Beyond Conspiracy, I also came across this documentary
which presents both sides of the question. I'm not sure who produced it
but it is narrated by Ike Pappas.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beyond+conspiracy&view=detail&mid=5CAEB4FA74D4159E7E115CAEB4FA74D4159E7E11&FORM=VIRE
mainframetech
2018-08-02 02:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-03 04:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
So naturally you'll opt for the most bizarre choice.
mainframetech
2018-08-04 02:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
So naturally you'll opt for the most bizarre choice.
Nope, wrong again! I opted for the choice that made the most sense.
I know that Humes had orders as to what he would find in the body, and the
necrosis is one of those things. Whether Finck mentioned it to him or he
knew of it himself.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-05 03:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
So naturally you'll opt for the most bizarre choice.
Nope, wrong again! I opted for the choice that made the most sense.
To you.
Post by mainframetech
I know that Humes had orders as to what he would find in the body, and the
necrosis is one of those things. Whether Finck mentioned it to him or he
knew of it himself.
You "know" lots of things that in reality you have just dreamed up.
mainframetech
2018-08-06 04:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
So naturally you'll opt for the most bizarre choice.
Nope, wrong again! I opted for the choice that made the most sense.
To you.
Well, certainly not to you!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I know that Humes had orders as to what he would find in the body, and the
necrosis is one of those things. Whether Finck mentioned it to him or he
knew of it himself.
You "know" lots of things that in reality you have just dreamed up.
and you have lots of opinions that don't go anywhere and are useless.

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-08-03 13:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
Chris
The last refuge of a conspiracist. Any evidence contradicting or
disproving his conspiracy is, of course, part of the conspiracy.

The more evidence produced that show there was NO conspiracy is, for the
conspiracy mindset, evidence that there was.
mainframetech
2018-08-05 03:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
Chris
The last refuge of a conspiracist. Any evidence contradicting or
disproving his conspiracy is, of course, part of the conspiracy.
The more evidence produced that show there was NO conspiracy is, for the
conspiracy mindset, evidence that there was.
LOL! Another guru! I show him proof of a phony photo of the BOH, and
he ignores it, since he knows better than any evidence! Well, that
evidence does indeed contradict the 'official' story, which is that there
was a bullet hole in the BOH and the specific location. Well, after they
argued with Humes and got him to change his mind as to the location. And
that location was shown in the photo and there was NO BULLET HOLE there!
But the drawing by Ida Dox had a bullet hole right where it was said to
be!

Try comparing the drawing to the photo it was copied from, and you'll
find that the photo either did not have a bullet hole in it, or it was
faked, since that area of the BOH was spoken of by OVER 39 eyewitnesses
that there was a 'large hole' there in the occipital area, lower and a bit
to the right. Here's a drawing by Tom Robinson, the mortician, and no one
got closer than he did when he was filling that hole with plaster
preparing for a funeral:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Here's the photo:

Loading Image...

And the drawing:

Loading Image...

You nay get tired of hearing it, but no one has been able to explain
it yet, and I don't expect they ever will.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-05 14:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
Chris
The last refuge of a conspiracist. Any evidence contradicting or
disproving his conspiracy is, of course, part of the conspiracy.
Then SHOW it to me. Show me where it was.
If it were thar simple it must have been down near the EOP.
That would make the cowlick wound obsolete. Is that what you think? If
it was up at the cowlick how could Finck sign off on the EOP entrance
wound? Something not right here.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The more evidence produced that show there was NO conspiracy is, for the
conspiracy mindset, evidence that there was.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 02:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
Chris
The last refuge of a conspiracist. Any evidence contradicting or
disproving his conspiracy is, of course, part of the conspiracy.
How about SHOWING us this evidence instead of just bluffing?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The more evidence produced that show there was NO conspiracy is, for the
conspiracy mindset, evidence that there was.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-05 14:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
All this about 'Coagulation Necrosis' that occurs on an entrance
wound. Of course, we don't know if Humes got the sample from the front of
the head, or the rear! Or if he simply made this up, having heard that it
could occur in a case like this.
It that something they COULD have taken photos of?
Can YOU see it in any of the photos?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-02 17:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
You are correct about the CTs. I understand exactly what you mean about
RH.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Agreed. If I had the money I'd buy and mail to every home a copy of
both. Or how about a well-financed 2 or 3 hour TV documentary backed by a
large advertising budget? Hey, a person can wish. Mark
Of what? Do you even have Revising History or the WC report? I do. I have
several copies of the WC report and have offered to mail them to anyone
for free, but no one will post their real name and real address. I just
had to throw away one of my 3 copies of Marina and Lee.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-01 03:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
Full of lies. That's why you like it. Like Trump.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
Why stop there? Why not read all the internal memos also? You know, the
ones they covered up for years?

Or all of the Zapruder film which they kept out of the public view?
You always love cover-ups. JFK, My Lai, Nixon, Trump.
Post by bigdog
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Who read RH?
Maybe 100 people? Why wasn't it a Best Seller like all the conspiracy books?
Post by bigdog
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Ardent? Not harsh enough. Are YOU ardent in your cover-ups?
Jason Burke
2018-08-02 02:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
    But though unnecessary, there is additional medical
evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound.  The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound.  Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound.  Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them.  When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent.  The changes in
the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds.  In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon.  These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis.  They cannot be
seen
by the naked eye.'
    In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
    'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
     'Yes, I would.'
     'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view
that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
     All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck.  He specializes in this type of
thing.  I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source.  As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room.  My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
     So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by
conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
    (The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
Full of lies. That's why you like it. Like Trump.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
Why stop there? Why not read all the internal memos also? You know, the
ones they covered up for years?
Or all of the Zapruder film which they kept out of the public view?
You always love cover-ups. JFK, My Lai, Nixon, Trump.
Post by bigdog
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Who read RH?
Maybe 100 people? Why wasn't it a Best Seller like all the conspiracy books?
Post by bigdog
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Ardent? Not harsh enough. Are YOU ardent in your cover-ups?
Dang. Anthony Anthony has almost an infantile fixation with Trump.

Sadly, he's not the only one.

Deal with it. I had to deal with my "brother" screwing up the country
for eight years.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 02:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
    But though unnecessary, there is additional medical
evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound.  The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound.  Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound.  Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them.  When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent.  The changes
in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds.  In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon.  These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis.  They cannot be
seen
by the naked eye.'
    In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
    'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
     'Yes, I would.'
     'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal
view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
     All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck.  He specializes in this type of
thing.  I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source.  As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room.  My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
     So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by
conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
    (The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
Full of lies. That's why you like it. Like Trump.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
Why stop there? Why not read all the internal memos also? You know,
the ones they covered up for years?
Or all of the Zapruder film which they kept out of the public view?
You always love cover-ups. JFK, My Lai, Nixon, Trump.
Post by bigdog
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Who read RH?
Maybe 100 people? Why wasn't it a Best Seller like all the conspiracy books?
Post by bigdog
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Ardent? Not harsh enough. Are YOU ardent in your cover-ups?
Dang. Anthony Anthony has almost an infantile fixation with Trump.
Sadly, he's not the only one.
Deal with it. I had to deal with my "brother" screwing up the country
for eight years.
Like clockwork you always attack me when you are afraid to answer my
questions.
Mark
2018-08-02 02:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
Full of lies. That's why you like it. Like Trump.
Post by bigdog
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
Why stop there? Why not read all the internal memos also? You know, the
ones they covered up for years?
Or all of the Zapruder film which they kept out of the public view?
You always love cover-ups. JFK, My Lai, Nixon, Trump.
Post by bigdog
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Who read RH?
Maybe 100 people? Why wasn't it a Best Seller like all the conspiracy books?
Post by bigdog
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Ardent? Not harsh enough. Are YOU ardent in your cover-ups?
I have no idea how these comments have to do with anything.

To repeat.

Merriam-Webster

Definition of Troll

"2 a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting
inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive
content."

Mark
mainframetech
2018-08-02 02:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Excellent information and yet I have no doubt our CT friends will attempt
to find some way of weaseling their way around it. Reclaiming History has
so much information in it that I find that there are many parts of it I
simply don't remember and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing it
to our attention.
I believe that if the public in general would take the time to read the
entire WCR, 90% of them would be convinced Oswald was the assassin. If
they read RH in addition to the WCR, it would probably jump to 99%.
Bugliosi was so thorough in his gathering of information and his
refutation of the most popular conspiracy claims that only the most ardent
CT could continue to believe that Oswald was not the assassin.
Naturally, Bugliosi was a lawyer, and was trained to do the detail work
and make an argument. "Coagulation Necrosis" was stated in the Autopsy
Report (AR) but were there slides saved by the prosectors? Or was there a
prohibition about saving anything away from the body and not burying it
with the body. In other words, ONLY Humes wrote the AR, and so he was the
one who wrote the phrase, but was that really what he saw? If it was
indeed a phony autopsy, as has been shown, then we can't depend on
anything that's in the AR.

Chris
claviger
2018-07-31 20:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Game over for some overwrought CTs.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-02 02:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Game over for some overwrought CTs.
Your theories are bases on LIES.
bigdog
2018-08-02 02:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Game over for some overwrought CTs.
Nothing is over until they say it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed
Pearl Harbor?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 02:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Game over for some overwrought CTs.
Nothing is over until they say it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed
Pearl Harbor?
Germans? I don't get the joke.
mainframetech
2018-08-02 02:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Game over for some overwrought CTs.
Naah! You know better than that!

Chris
mainframetech
2018-08-01 03:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.

Chris
Mark
2018-08-02 02:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Chris
Chris, some friendly advice. If that's all you've got, you're better
off not replying at all. Where is your usual point-by-point rebuttal?
Probably just as well, though. I can argue the evidence, but I can't
communicate with someone who denies it. Mark
mainframetech
2018-08-03 02:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Chris
Chris, some friendly advice. If that's all you've got, you're better
off not replying at all. Where is your usual point-by-point rebuttal?
Probably just as well, though. I can argue the evidence, but I can't
communicate with someone who denies it. Mark
Well then you aren't able to argue with bd, who rarely has anything new
to offer us, but causes me to repeat myself many times over when he
repeats his WCR mantra. Every now and then you'll have to relax your
demands on me and allow that I get tired of hearing myself, just as others
do, repeating something I've said a hundred times before. I hope that I
can be forgiven now and then for shortcutting and simply saying that
something can be proved, then if someone needs to hear the details, I'll
be happy to provide them, including my reasons for going with my choices.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-02 02:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
mainframetech
2018-08-03 02:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
Once again you foul up. Here's a copy of the report. Look where I
tell you. Under "skin Wounds" in the "Supplemental Report". Simple.
Here's a copy of the report:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Chris
Mark
2018-08-05 04:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
That's right, and it gets frustrating doesn't it? Those three who found
the truth, ended up being unable to record it accurately. Mark
mainframetech
2018-08-06 04:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
That's right, and it gets frustrating doesn't it? Those three who found
the truth, ended up being unable to record it accurately. Mark
Looks like you blew it again. If you check into the area of the
Autopsy Report (AR) called "Supplementary Report" which is attached to the
AR, you'll find the 'Coagulation Necrosis' in the section entitled "Skin
Wounds". Here's a link to the AR:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Chris
BT George
2018-08-07 05:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
That's right, and it gets frustrating doesn't it? Those three who found
the truth, ended up being unable to record it accurately. Mark
Looks like you blew it again. If you check into the area of the
Autopsy Report (AR) called "Supplementary Report" which is attached to the
AR, you'll find the 'Coagulation Necrosis' in the section entitled "Skin
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
Thanks for saving me the trouble. Congrats! You've just *proven* my point
that this sophisticated finding about the wound was made by one of the men
whose competence (and honesy) you question whenever it conflicts with what
your theories require to be true.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
That's right, and it gets frustrating doesn't it? Those three who found
the truth, ended up being unable to record it accurately. Mark
Looks like you blew it again. If you check into the area of the
Autopsy Report (AR) called "Supplementary Report" which is attached to the
AR, you'll find the 'Coagulation Necrosis' in the section entitled "Skin
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
Thanks for saving me the trouble. Congrats! You've just *proven* my point
that this sophisticated finding about the wound was made by one of the men
whose competence (and honesy) you question whenever it conflicts with what
your theories require to be true.
Apparently you're wedded to your opinions, and proof of anything is to
be ignored. But that's your privilege.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-07 15:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
That's right, and it gets frustrating doesn't it? Those three who found
the truth, ended up being unable to record it accurately. Mark
Looks like you blew it again. If you check into the area of the
Autopsy Report (AR) called "Supplementary Report" which is attached to the
AR, you'll find the 'Coagulation Necrosis' in the section entitled "Skin
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
Chris
Here is what it actually says in the autopsy report:

Skin Wounds

Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right posterior
thoracic regions are essentially similar. In each there is loss of
continuity of the epidermis with coagulation necrosis of the tissues at
the wound margins. The scalp wound exhibits several small fragments of
bone at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue.
______________________________________________________________


Get it now? The necrosis is on the SCALP and AT the site of the bullet
wound that they could SEE on the back of the head. So if WC defenders
really want to prove that they defend the WC, they have to claim that the
head wound was down near the EOP. IF they accept the head wound in the
cowlick and even claim that they can actually see it themselves then they
are either conspiracy kooks or they believe there were two different
bullet wounds on the back of JFK's head.

How about if they claim it was from the shot that the WC said missed?
Yeah, that would solve their problem.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 16:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Actually, coagulation necrosis was not included in the autopsy report. You
can bring the report up online and search for those words. You won't find
them. Finck noted that but Humes did not include it in the report. You
need to come up with a different excuse to dismiss this evidence.
That's right, and it gets frustrating doesn't it? Those three who found
the truth, ended up being unable to record it accurately. Mark
I think you have necrosis of the brain.
WHERE is that necrosis you think the autopsy doctors found? Show me.
Pick your favorite spot of the week.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-02 17:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Of course, the finding was present on the Autopsy Report (AR) placed by
one of the 3 prosectors, who had orders as to what they would find,
including that JFK was killed by a bullet from above and behind. They
were also given the reason for making out a false AR.
Chris
So, where was this coagulation? Down near the EOP or up near the cowlick?
Isn't it interesting that they can move it as absolute proof to wherever
their theory du jour placeds an entrance wound on the head?
BT George
2018-08-01 03:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.

Brock (BT) George
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-08-02 02:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.

These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.

Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
mainframetech
2018-08-03 02:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason. I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.

Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
experts as well as the laypersons:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm

Go to the next page from the explanation.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-04 04:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
mainframetech
2018-08-05 03:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it. The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.

It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-06 04:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
mainframetech
2018-08-07 04:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say if
plain foolish. An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used the
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!

Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even!
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm

page 103-104
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consensus,
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic. If we believed
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would
stop.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof of
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA's
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they
didn't do their job very well. Of course, this was a situation they were
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read the
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to many
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove its
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HSCA
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-08 05:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say if
plain foolish.
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you
something but evidently doesn't.

The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible with
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they ALL
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories
to be true.
Post by mainframetech
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used the
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Post by mainframetech
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even!
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on public
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos as
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn't
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looked
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments
bites the dust.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consensus,
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your
own.
Post by mainframetech
If we believed
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would
stop.
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what
they are talking about. That ain't you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof of
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA's
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they
didn't do their job very well.
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
Post by mainframetech
Of course, this was a situation they were
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read the
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to many
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove its
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HSCA
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what
you're talking about.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-09 16:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say if
plain foolish.
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you
False. I have seen more evidence than you have.
And I was the first person who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. Not you. And I was the first person to point out the dent on
the back of the rearview mirror. Not even Groden noticed it.
You can SEE more when you are actually LOOKing for the Truth, not
dedicated to covering it up and destroying it.
Post by bigdog
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you
something but evidently doesn't.
It tells me what you don't want to admit.
Post by bigdog
The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible with
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are
Partly because they have been proven to be liars.
Post by bigdog
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they ALL
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories
to be true.
W don't have to accept what Big Brother tells us any more.
If you don't like Democracy, go move to Russia.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used the
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Post by mainframetech
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even!
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.
Oh no, now you're admitting that it's a fake.
Well at least you can say you don't believe the HSCA because you are a
WC defender.
Post by bigdog
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because
It was not a presentation to the HSCA. That is false. It was made to be
published for the public to see.
Post by bigdog
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on public
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos as
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
And you don't care if they keep moving the head wound around. Just
anywhere on the head is goos enough for you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn't
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looked
No, they were only interested in a hole in the back of the head because
they were preparing to endorse the WC. For example, they had already
drawn up their own SBT BEFORE the acoustics results came in. Then when
the acoustics came in they had to scramble and pick a new frame for
their SBT which could fit in with the grassy knoll shot.
But they had to say that the grassy knoll missed to give cover to the
Republicans on the committee who were all WC defenders like you.
So it ended up at frame Z-190 which even someone like YOU can see is
totally ridiculous.
Post by bigdog
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments
bites the dust.
So you continue to refuse to look at the autopsy photos of the skull
which show the hole and refuse to admit that Dr. Lawrence Angel admitted
that there was a hole on the forehead. Hell, even McAdams admits that HE
of all people can see the hole. But you can't, because you refuse to
look. And you pretend to be arguing here with an open mind.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consensus,
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no
AGain, do you understand that the leaked photos are just as good as the
unleaked photos? You just refuse to look at the evidence to prove to
your buddies that you are a good little minion who follows orders.
Post by bigdog
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your
own.
Post by mainframetech
If we believed
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would
stop.
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what
they are talking about. That ain't you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof of
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA's
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they
didn't do their job very well.
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
Post by mainframetech
Of course, this was a situation they were
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read the
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to many
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Because we've actually looked at the evidence, you haven't.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove its
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HSCA
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what
you're talking about.
We have what you don't. The evidence.
mainframetech
2018-08-09 02:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say if
plain foolish.
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you
something but evidently doesn't.
How stupid can humans get? If experts do not see the critical
photograph, or they do not see the part of a photo that gives away the
reason for death, then they will make a mistake. If they are misled, they
could make a mistake. By following them blindly no one would have ever
known that the kill shot was from the front, completely killing the whole
SBT and the WCR that depends on it. Experts can be misled or make a
mistake, since they're human. But of course, you knew all this from the
many other times you didn't understand it and had to ask about it.
Post by bigdog
The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible with
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they ALL
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories
to be true.
Ah, the psychology guru today! Changed hats again. You know more of
the minds around you than you do your own. Geez! The image you must have
of yourself!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used the
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Not really. Perhaps you'll explain that, since I can show solid
proof of my statement. Simply go to the link I will provide and read the
text, which explains that they used the drawing, but gave NO REASON for
doing it. Then go to the next page where they show the Drawing itself in
place of a photo that had no bullet hole in it:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm

Pages 103-104
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even!
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on public
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos as
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
So what you're saying is that the authorities were giving out Ida Doxs
drawings from the first medical panel right through. And since we know
the BOH photo had NO BULLET HOLE and was used to PRETEND there was a
bullet hole in the BOH, that other photos were also drawn and shown to the
panels. So they never saw ANY real photos, only the Dox Drawings. Now is
that right?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn't
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looked
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments
bites the dust.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things. Sine they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo, the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.


Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consensus,
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your
own.
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense., or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If we believed
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would
stop.
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what
they are talking about. That ain't you.
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled. If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.

And it's time fore me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof of
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA's
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they
didn't do their job very well.
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, this was a situation they were
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read the
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to many
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove its
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HSCA
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what
you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations? After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-10 02:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 12:36:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Original-Trace: 8 Aug 2018 21:11:01 -0500, 166.84.1.3
Lines: 580
X-Trace: sv3-ASpIA2mnAgrWamGvCINFsgjAxtg/s770uaKn0in5UTcX0rKb/ARYXLWNGRav+7Lt4fUrfQx1ce6GZh0!QwUxxj53GkVoX0xWXGuDatsnKuFnseUqfP9uuPfgPJOmCILFH7dykcnvqeCOhO6TH95zeNKRJidt!f70Bo5Wb2yi09kUNdto=
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 23431
X-Original-Bytes: 23337
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:45:08 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote=
Post by mainframetech
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 10:29:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech w=
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 10:51:33 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Gal=
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:46:19 PM UTC-4, BT George wro=
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the=
CT coffin.=20
Post by mainframetech
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HIST=
ORY.
Post by mainframetech
=20
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical ev=
idence--indeed,=20
Post by mainframetech
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the presi=
dent's head was=20
Post by mainframetech
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulati=
on necrosis of=20
Post by mainframetech
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr.=
Wecht=20
Post by mainframetech
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure=
sign' of an=20
Post by mainframetech
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than f=
ifty autopsy=20
Post by mainframetech
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the =
term COAGULATION=20
Post by mainframetech
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to defin=
e the term for=20
Post by mainframetech
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the der=
mis [outer layer=20
Post by mainframetech
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen,=
the protein=20
Post by mainframetech
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. Th=
e changes in the=20
Post by mainframetech
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects =
of the bullet in=20
Post by mainframetech
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are p=
roduced by the=20
Post by mainframetech
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These =
collagen=20
Post by mainframetech
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. The=
y cannot be seen=20
Post by mainframetech
by the naked eye.'
=20
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that alt=
hough, as he=20
Post by mainframetech
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion =
collars, 'ALL=20
Post by mainframetech
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings=
of coagulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or tho=
se of other=20
Post by mainframetech
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the der=
mis can only be=20
Post by mainframetech
seen by use of a microscope.
=20
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of co=
agulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one=
, would you not?'
Post by mainframetech
=20
'Yes, I would.'
=20
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost uni=
versal view that=20
Post by mainframetech
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very=
inferior and=20
Post by mainframetech
amateurish post-mortem?'
=20
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the=
coagulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in=
this type of=20
Post by mainframetech
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or =
Boswell.' It=20
Post by mainframetech
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Fi=
nck at the time=20
Post by mainframetech
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of=
the Armed Forces=20
Post by mainframetech
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked'=
by Humes to=20
Post by mainframetech
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the=
wounds. . .It=20
Post by mainframetech
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was=
to study the=20
Post by mainframetech
wounds.'
=20
So we see that despite the insistent and strident cla=
ims by conspiracy=20
Post by mainframetech
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head wa=
s fired from his=20
Post by mainframetech
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence p=
roves not just=20
Post by mainframetech
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it wa=
s fired from his=20
Post by mainframetech
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's he=
ad was an=20
Post by mainframetech
entrance wound.
=20
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)=20
=20
Mark
=20
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi hi=
mself takes=20
Post by mainframetech
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as inco=
mpetent, nor as=20
Post by mainframetech
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended=
to think. =20
Post by mainframetech
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *=
Forensic*=20
Post by mainframetech
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral=
Burkley and=20
Post by mainframetech
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain pr=
ocedures, they=20
Post by mainframetech
did a pretty admirable job.
=20
Brock (BT) George
=20
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts=
highly=20
Post by mainframetech
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers thin=
k they can=20
Post by mainframetech
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and over=
night become=20
Post by mainframetech
experts on such highly technical matters.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appe=
ars as the=20
Post by mainframetech
guru of all professions.
=20
=20
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the =
real=20
Post by mainframetech
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
=20
=20
=20
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
=20
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have =
to=20
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
=20
=20
=20
=20
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wr=
ong=20
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say=
if=20
plain foolish.=20
=20
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an=20
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than=
=20
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have=
=20
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you=20
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better=20
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.=
=20
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you=20
something but evidently doesn't.
=20
How stupid can humans get? If experts do not see the critical
photograph, or they do not see the part of a photo that gives away the
reason for death, then they will make a mistake. If they are misled, they
could make a mistake. By following them blindly no one would have ever
known that the kill shot was from the front, completely killing the whole
SBT and the WCR that depends on it. Experts can be misled or make a
mistake, since they're human. But of course, you knew all this from the
many other times you didn't understand it and had to ask about it.
The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is=20
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible wit=
h=20
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are=20
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they AL=
L=20
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories=
=20
to be true.
Ah, the psychology guru today! Changed hats again. You know more of
the minds around you than you do your own. Geez! The image you must have
of yourself!
=20
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did=20
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used t=
he=20
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
=20
=20
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Not really. Perhaps you'll explain that, since I can show solid
proof of my statement. Simply go to the link I will provide and read the
text, which explains that they used the drawing, but gave NO REASON for
doing it. Then go to the next page where they show the Drawing itself in
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7=
_0057a.htm
Pages 103-104
=20
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't=
=20
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as=20
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even! =
=20
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
=20
=20
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.=
=20
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because=20
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on publi=
c=20
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos a=
s=20
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
So what you're saying is that the authorities were giving out Ida Doxs
drawings from the first medical panel right through. And since we know
the BOH photo had NO BULLET HOLE and was used to PRETEND there was a
bullet hole in the BOH, that other photos were also drawn and shown to the
panels. So they never saw ANY real photos, only the Dox Drawings. Now is
that right?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_=
Vol7_0057a.htm
=20
page 103-104
=20
=20
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For=
=20
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn'=
t=20
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the=
=20
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looke=
d=20
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments=20
bites the dust.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things.
So you think they all lied?
Sine they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo,
Why would you assume something as silly as they just breezed through the
photos. Oh, that's right. They didn't see things your way. That's the only
possible explanation. It couldn't be because they knew what that were
talking about and you don't.
the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Amazing that the same bullet hole you tell us is obvious can't easily be
seen.
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
So you do think they lied.
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
I wish they had made the autopsy pictures public just as I wish the WC had
but that doesn't mean I think they had a sinister reason for not doing so.
I don't need to dream up something so ridiculous to bolster my beliefs.
=20
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his=20
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everythin=
g,=20
Post by mainframetech
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' w=
hom he=20
Post by mainframetech
doesn't give credit to.=20
=20
=20
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than=
=20
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when=
they=20
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
=20
=20
=20
=20
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consens=
us,=20
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
=20
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I=
=20
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no=20
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have=
=20
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about=
=20
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and=20
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an=
=20
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your=
=20
own.
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense., or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
You are a person who is foolish enough to think you can make a better
judgement with far less evidence, experience, and knowledge.
If we believed=20
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.=
=20
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would=
=20
stop.
=20
=20
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you=
=20
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own=
=20
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what=
=20
they are talking about. That ain't you.
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled.
Right. All of them. But you look at one photo and see what they missed
looking at all the photos.
If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
If you see things that knowledgeable people don't, wouldn't it make sense
to question your own judgement rather than theirs?
And it's time fore me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Quote him saying he sees a bullet hole in your forehead/temple.
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need=
an=20
Post by mainframetech
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the questio=
n can=20
Post by mainframetech
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic o=
f a=20
Post by mainframetech
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert =
to tell=20
Post by mainframetech
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what =
a hole=20
Post by mainframetech
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert=
to=20
Post by mainframetech
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
=20
=20
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by lo=
oking=20
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of p=
hotos=20
and x-rays.
=20
=20
=20
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof=
of=20
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA'=
s=20
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they=
=20
didn't do their job very well.=20
=20
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.=
=20
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at=20
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
It's been explained to you why a drawing was substituted for photographs
in the final report. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.
=20
Of course, this was a situation they were=20
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read =
the=20
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to man=
y=20
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
=20
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
It's a good thing we have an untrained layman such as yourself to
straighten them out.
=20
Post by mainframetech
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on t=
hese issues.=20
Post by mainframetech
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation s=
pend billions=20
Post by mainframetech
on education.
=20
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as lia=
rs and frauds=20
Post by mainframetech
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
=20
=20
=20
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.=20
=20
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories=
so their=20
Post by mainframetech
opinions must be wrong.
=20
=20
=20
=20
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm intereste=
d in=20
Post by mainframetech
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for ins=
tance)=20
Post by mainframetech
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
=20
=20
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what =
they=20
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've=
=20
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
=20
=20
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are=20
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far=
=20
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
You must think yours are established facts. <chuckle>
=20
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused=20
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for se=
eing=20
Post by mainframetech
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
=20
=20
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories=
to be=20
Post by mainframetech
true.
=20
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially =
when they=20
Post by mainframetech
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from =
Ida Dox as=20
Post by mainframetech
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph th=
at the=20
Post by mainframetech
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can af=
fect the=20
Post by mainframetech
=20
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/ht=
ml/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Post by mainframetech
=20
Go to the next page from the explanation.
=20
=20
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
=20
=20
=20
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA wo=
uld use=20
Post by mainframetech
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
=20
=20
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-r=
ays.=20
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
=20
=20
=20
=20
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the=
=20
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove i=
ts=20
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HS=
CA=20
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
=20
=20
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel=20
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared=
=20
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what=
=20
you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations?
Because that would have been dumb and dumber.
After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
The bullet holes is there despite your denials.
mainframetech
2018-08-11 04:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 12:36:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Original-Trace: 8 Aug 2018 21:11:01 -0500, 166.84.1.3
Lines: 580
X-Trace: sv3-ASpIA2mnAgrWamGvCINFsgjAxtg/s770uaKn0in5UTcX0rKb/ARYXLWNGRav+7Lt4fUrfQx1ce6GZh0!QwUxxj53GkVoX0xWXGuDatsnKuFnseUqfP9uuPfgPJOmCILFH7dykcnvqeCOhO6TH95zeNKRJidt!f70Bo5Wb2yi09kUNdto=
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 23431
X-Original-Bytes: 23337
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:45:08 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote=
Post by mainframetech
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 10:29:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech w=
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 10:51:33 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Gal=
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:46:19 PM UTC-4, BT George wro=
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the=
CT coffin.=20
Post by mainframetech
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HIST=
ORY.
Post by mainframetech
=20
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical ev=
idence--indeed,=20
Post by mainframetech
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the presi=
dent's head was=20
Post by mainframetech
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulati=
on necrosis of=20
Post by mainframetech
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr.=
Wecht=20
Post by mainframetech
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure=
sign' of an=20
Post by mainframetech
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than f=
ifty autopsy=20
Post by mainframetech
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the =
term COAGULATION=20
Post by mainframetech
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to defin=
e the term for=20
Post by mainframetech
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the der=
mis [outer layer=20
Post by mainframetech
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen,=
the protein=20
Post by mainframetech
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. Th=
e changes in the=20
Post by mainframetech
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects =
of the bullet in=20
Post by mainframetech
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are p=
roduced by the=20
Post by mainframetech
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These =
collagen=20
Post by mainframetech
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. The=
y cannot be seen=20
Post by mainframetech
by the naked eye.'
=20
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that alt=
hough, as he=20
Post by mainframetech
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion =
collars, 'ALL=20
Post by mainframetech
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings=
of coagulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or tho=
se of other=20
Post by mainframetech
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the der=
mis can only be=20
Post by mainframetech
seen by use of a microscope.
=20
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of co=
agulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one=
, would you not?'
Post by mainframetech
=20
'Yes, I would.'
=20
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost uni=
versal view that=20
Post by mainframetech
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very=
inferior and=20
Post by mainframetech
amateurish post-mortem?'
=20
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the=
coagulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in=
this type of=20
Post by mainframetech
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or =
Boswell.' It=20
Post by mainframetech
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Fi=
nck at the time=20
Post by mainframetech
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of=
the Armed Forces=20
Post by mainframetech
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked'=
by Humes to=20
Post by mainframetech
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the=
wounds. . .It=20
Post by mainframetech
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was=
to study the=20
Post by mainframetech
wounds.'
=20
So we see that despite the insistent and strident cla=
ims by conspiracy=20
Post by mainframetech
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head wa=
s fired from his=20
Post by mainframetech
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence p=
roves not just=20
Post by mainframetech
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it wa=
s fired from his=20
Post by mainframetech
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's he=
ad was an=20
Post by mainframetech
entrance wound.
=20
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)=20
=20
Mark
=20
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi hi=
mself takes=20
Post by mainframetech
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as inco=
mpetent, nor as=20
Post by mainframetech
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended=
to think. =20
Post by mainframetech
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *=
Forensic*=20
Post by mainframetech
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral=
Burkley and=20
Post by mainframetech
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain pr=
ocedures, they=20
Post by mainframetech
did a pretty admirable job.
=20
Brock (BT) George
=20
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts=
highly=20
Post by mainframetech
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers thin=
k they can=20
Post by mainframetech
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and over=
night become=20
Post by mainframetech
experts on such highly technical matters.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appe=
ars as the=20
Post by mainframetech
guru of all professions.
=20
=20
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the =
real=20
Post by mainframetech
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
=20
=20
=20
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
=20
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have =
to=20
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
=20
=20
=20
=20
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wr=
ong=20
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say=
if=20
plain foolish.=20
=20
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an=20
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than=
=20
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have=
=20
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you=20
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better=20
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.=
=20
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you=20
something but evidently doesn't.
=20
How stupid can humans get? If experts do not see the critical
photograph, or they do not see the part of a photo that gives away the
reason for death, then they will make a mistake. If they are misled, they
could make a mistake. By following them blindly no one would have ever
known that the kill shot was from the front, completely killing the whole
SBT and the WCR that depends on it. Experts can be misled or make a
mistake, since they're human. But of course, you knew all this from the
many other times you didn't understand it and had to ask about it.
The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is=20
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible wit=
h=20
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are=20
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they AL=
L=20
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories=
=20
to be true.
Ah, the psychology guru today! Changed hats again. You know more of
the minds around you than you do your own. Geez! The image you must have
of yourself!
=20
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did=20
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used t=
he=20
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
=20
=20
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Not really. Perhaps you'll explain that, since I can show solid
proof of my statement. Simply go to the link I will provide and read the
text, which explains that they used the drawing, but gave NO REASON for
doing it. Then go to the next page where they show the Drawing itself in
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7=
_0057a.htm
Pages 103-104
=20
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't=
=20
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as=20
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even! =
=20
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
=20
=20
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.=
=20
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because=20
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on publi=
c=20
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos a=
s=20
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
So what you're saying is that the authorities were giving out Ida Doxs
drawings from the first medical panel right through. And since we know
the BOH photo had NO BULLET HOLE and was used to PRETEND there was a
bullet hole in the BOH, that other photos were also drawn and shown to the
panels. So they never saw ANY real photos, only the Dox Drawings. Now is
that right?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_=
Vol7_0057a.htm
=20
page 103-104
=20
=20
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For=
=20
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn'=
t=20
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the=
=20
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looke=
d=20
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments=20
bites the dust.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things.
So you think they all lied?
What's the matter with you? Did you see me say anything at ALL about
lying? If you read further, you'd have had an explanation for my words,
but as usual, you jumped too quickly and got tangled up again.
Post by bigdog
Since they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo,
Why would you assume something as silly as they just breezed through the
photos. Oh, that's right. They didn't see things your way. That's the only
possible explanation. It couldn't be because they knew what that were
talking about and you don't.
More foolishness. Why not try and debate like adults? It has nothing
to do with MY way of thinking, it has to do with something that had
already been done that they were asked to look over again. The AR gave
all the reasons and info they needed to determine cause of death, and the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area was not that obvious if you
weren't looking for it. Easy to miss.
Post by bigdog
the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Amazing that the same bullet hole you tell us is obvious can't easily be
seen.
How f***ing stupid can people get? That has been answered many times.
Please stop repeating everything all over again.
Post by bigdog
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
So you do think they lied.
WRONG! We're talking about 2 different groups of people here. I don't
think the Kennedys lied, nor any other family or friends. The second
group are the ones that were in charge of modifying photos and showing
evidence to the panels. Just showing the phony 'leaked' autopsy photos
was a form of lying, since they were altered, which was proven.
Post by bigdog
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using a drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
I wish they had made the autopsy pictures public just as I wish the WC had
but that doesn't mean I think they had a sinister reason for not doing so.
I don't need to dream up something so ridiculous to bolster my beliefs.
WRONG! That failed as a cover up. The 'leaked' autopsy photos
apparently were the ones they showed to others as if they were real and
not altered. Just one more reason for the panels to get it wrong.
Post by bigdog
=20
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his=20
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everythin=
g,=20
Post by mainframetech
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' w=
hom he=20
Post by mainframetech
doesn't give credit to.=20
=20
=20
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than=
=20
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when=
they=20
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
=20
=20
=20
=20
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consens=
us,=20
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
=20
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I=
=20
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no=20
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have=
=20
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about=
=20
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and=20
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an=
=20
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your=
=20
own.
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense, or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
You are a person who is foolish enough to think you can make a better
judgement with far less evidence, experience, and knowledge.
I don't use your methods.
Post by bigdog
If we believed=20
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.=
=20
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would=
=20
stop.
=20
=20
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you=
=20
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own=
=20
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what=
=20
they are talking about. That ain't you.
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled.
Right. All of them. But you look at one photo and see what they missed
looking at all the photos.
You missed it again! There was only one photo that was left in the
'leaked' photos that showed the bullet hole. We have to work with what
we're given.
Post by bigdog
If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
If you see things that knowledgeable people don't, wouldn't it make sense
to question your own judgement rather than theirs?
I'm familiar with the amount of care I put to various problems, but
not with what others use. So when I get a 'mismatch' I look elsewhere
first, THEN if that is OK, I recheck myself. Either way it get done.
Post by bigdog
And it's time for me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Quote him saying he sees a bullet hole in your forehead/temple.
I'm not going to search through 30 images and text for you, when
nothing is going to wean you from the WCR that you cuddle with. The image
022 was good enough to tell you that he decided that the bullets in the
throat and forehead/temple area Were from the front.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need=
an=20
Post by mainframetech
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the questio=
n can=20
Post by mainframetech
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic o=
f a=20
Post by mainframetech
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert =
to tell=20
Post by mainframetech
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what =
a hole=20
Post by mainframetech
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert=
to=20
Post by mainframetech
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
=20
=20
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by lo=
oking=20
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of p=
hotos=20
and x-rays.
=20
=20
=20
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof=
of=20
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA'=
s=20
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they=
=20
didn't do their job very well.=20
=20
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.=
=20
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at=20
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
It's been explained to you why a drawing was substituted for photographs
in the final report. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.
Oh, I heard that one years ago, about not wanting anyone to see JFK
dead, so they used the drawings. But if that's the case, then they showed
the drawings which we know were faked in at least one case, to the medical
panels and since the drawing had a faked bullet hole on it, and the photo
it copied did NOT, the experts were misled! How many other photos were
done the same way? Faked. And remember, the drawings were almost exactly
like the autopsy photos except for the added stuff that shouldn't be
there. It really showed JFK in almost exactly how he looked, since her
style of drawing was in a documentary mode, exactly like a B&W photo.

With that phony excuse, they could modify the drawings any way they
wanted to make the panels think it was a kill shot from the BOH that did
the job.
Post by bigdog
=20
Of course, this was a situation they were=20
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read =
the=20
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to man=
y=20
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
=20
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
It's a good thing we have an untrained layman such as yourself to
straighten them out.
It doesn't matter my level of expertise, or lack of it. These
things were all OBVIOUS to the average person when pointed out.
Post by bigdog
=20
Post by mainframetech
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on t=
hese issues.=20
Post by mainframetech
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation s=
pend billions=20
Post by mainframetech
on education.
=20
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as lia=
rs and frauds=20
Post by mainframetech
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
=20
=20
=20
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.=20
=20
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories=
so their=20
Post by mainframetech
opinions must be wrong.
=20
=20
=20
=20
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm intereste=
d in=20
Post by mainframetech
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for ins=
tance)=20
Post by mainframetech
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
=20
=20
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what =
they=20
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've=
=20
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
=20
=20
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are=20
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far=
=20
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
You must think yours are established facts. <chuckle>
Nope, I'm in the process of establishing them!
Post by bigdog
=20
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused=20
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for se=
eing=20
Post by mainframetech
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
=20
=20
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories=
to be=20
Post by mainframetech
true.
=20
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially =
when they=20
Post by mainframetech
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from =
Ida Dox as=20
Post by mainframetech
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph th=
at the=20
Post by mainframetech
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can af=
fect the=20
Post by mainframetech
=20
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/ht=
ml/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Post by mainframetech
=20
Go to the next page from the explanation.
=20
=20
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
=20
=20
=20
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA wo=
uld use=20
Post by mainframetech
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
=20
=20
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-r=
ays.=20
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
=20
=20
=20
=20
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the=
=20
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove i=
ts=20
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HS=
CA=20
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
=20
=20
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel=20
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared=
=20
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what=
=20
you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations?
Because that would have been dumb and dumber.
Well, there ya go!
Post by bigdog
After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
The bullet holes is there despite your denials.
I rather think your denials are the ones going on at the moment. The
photo of the BOH is clear and the quality is good enough to see a bullet
hole if it looked like the drawing, but there's northing on the photo that
is even remotely like the drawing as to bullet holes! Never mind that the
photo is also missing the 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39
eyewitnesses that corroborate each other.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 22:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things.
So you think they all lied?
What's the matter with you? Did you see me say anything at ALL about
lying?
You just suggested that even though they said they looked at the photos in
10X magnification that doesn't mean they actually did that. If they said
they did that and hadn't actually done that, it would be a lie. So the
choices are that they actually looked at the photos with 10X magnification
or they lied. Which one are you going with?
Post by mainframetech
If you read further, you'd have had an explanation for my words,
but as usual, you jumped too quickly and got tangled up again.
Oh, this should be good.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo,
Why would you assume something as silly as they just breezed through the
photos. Oh, that's right. They didn't see things your way. That's the only
possible explanation. It couldn't be because they knew what that were
talking about and you don't.
More foolishness. Why not try and debate like adults? It has nothing
to do with MY way of thinking, it has to do with something that had
already been done that they were asked to look over again. The AR gave
all the reasons and info they needed to determine cause of death, and the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area was not that obvious if you
weren't looking for it. Easy to miss.
So now we are getting closer to the truth. In order to see the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple, you first have to convince yourself one is there.
Then if you see a dark spot you can say, "AHA!!! There it is.". You can
also then tell everyone how obvious it is even though it is easy to miss.

The review panels were tasked with looking at the medical evidence, i.e.
the photos and x-rays, and determining whether the original autopsy
findings were valid. You are suggesting they were derelict in their duty
and did nothing more than rubber stamp those findings without actually
examining the evidence. Of course you would have to claim the Clark Panel
and Rockefeller Commission did the same.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Amazing that the same bullet hole you tell us is obvious can't easily be
seen.
How f***ing stupid can people get? That has been answered many times.
Please stop repeating everything all over again.
You're right. It is pretty stupid to say something can be both obvious and
not easily seen.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
So you do think they lied.
WRONG! We're talking about 2 different groups of people here. I don't
think the Kennedys lied, nor any other family or friends. The second
group are the ones that were in charge of modifying photos and showing
evidence to the panels. Just showing the phony 'leaked' autopsy photos
was a form of lying, since they were altered, which was proven.
Who modified the photos and what is your evidence the review panels saw
altered photos?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using a drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
I wish they had made the autopsy pictures public just as I wish the WC had
but that doesn't mean I think they had a sinister reason for not doing so.
I don't need to dream up something so ridiculous to bolster my beliefs.
WRONG! That failed as a cover up. The 'leaked' autopsy photos
apparently were the ones they showed to others as if they were real and
not altered. Just one more reason for the panels to get it wrong.
As you do with all the evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, you invent
an excuse to dismiss it. The autopsy photos don't show what you want to
believe so you assume they were altered. You show know evidence that such
alteration was done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense, or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
You are a person who is foolish enough to think you can make a better
judgement with far less evidence, experience, and knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled.
Right. All of them. But you look at one photo and see what they missed
looking at all the photos.
You missed it again! There was only one photo that was left in the
'leaked' photos that showed the bullet hole. We have to work with what
we're given.
The review panels saw the original of the SOD photo through 10X
magnification and they didn't see your bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
If you see things that knowledgeable people don't, wouldn't it make sense
to question your own judgement rather than theirs?
I'm familiar with the amount of care I put to various problems, but
not with what others use. So when I get a 'mismatch' I look elsewhere
first, THEN if that is OK, I recheck myself. Either way it get done.
So are you saying none of the review panels put much care into their work?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it's time for me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Quote him saying he sees a bullet hole in your forehead/temple.
I'm not going to search through 30 images and text for you,
So again you expect me to search through 30 images and text looking for a
non-existent quote to support something you have claimed. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
when
nothing is going to wean you from the WCR that you cuddle with. The image
022 was good enough to tell you that he decided that the bullets in the
throat and forehead/temple area Were from the front.
The question was not whether he believes the head shot was fired from in
front. You claimed he was a person who said he saw your forehead/temple
bullet hole. I asked you to support that claim and apparently unable to do
so, you try to shift the burden to me. His diagrams don't show the bullet
striking your forehead/temple and his text doesn't say it struck there
either. The only line from his SoGK shooter's position and the supposed
BOH exit goes through the center of the forehead, not your
forehead/temple. It is impossible to draw a line from the shooter's
location through the forehead/temple and have it exit the BOH. It would
seem a magic bullet is called for here.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
It's been explained to you why a drawing was substituted for photographs
in the final report. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.
Oh, I heard that one years ago, about not wanting anyone to see JFK
dead, so they used the drawings. But if that's the case, then they showed
the drawings which we know were faked in at least one case, to the medical
panels and since the drawing had a faked bullet hole on it, and the photo
it copied did NOT, the experts were misled! How many other photos were
done the same way? Faked. And remember, the drawings were almost exactly
like the autopsy photos except for the added stuff that shouldn't be
there. It really showed JFK in almost exactly how he looked, since her
style of drawing was in a documentary mode, exactly like a B&W photo.
Why do you keep insisting the review panel based their findings on a
drawing and not the photos when they stated flatly they looked at the
photos in 10X magnification and the transparencies in stereo? Do you think
they were lying when they said that or do you think they actually did what
they said?
Post by mainframetech
With that phony excuse, they could modify the drawings any way they
wanted to make the panels think it was a kill shot from the BOH that did
the job.
I'll type it slower this time. The panels looked at the PHOTOS to based
their conclusions. They did not base their conclusions on the drawings.
Those drawings were the product of their findings, not the source of them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
It's a good thing we have an untrained layman such as yourself to
straighten them out.
It doesn't matter my level of expertise, or lack of it.
Not to you.
Post by mainframetech
These things were all OBVIOUS to the average person when pointed out.
Your standard statement when making claims for which there is no evidence.
Just say it is obvious.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
You must think yours are established facts. <chuckle>
Nope, I'm in the process of establishing them!
Take your time. We still have 82 years left in this century.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know
what you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations?
Because that would have been dumb and dumber.
Well, there ya go!
But not nearly as dumb as thinking that's what they actually did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
The bullet holes is there despite your denials.
I rather think your denials are the ones going on at the moment. The
photo of the BOH is clear and the quality is good enough to see a bullet
hole if it looked like the drawing, but there's northing on the photo that
is even remotely like the drawing as to bullet holes! Never mind that the
photo is also missing the 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39
eyewitnesses that corroborate each other.
The man who sees a bullet hole in a dark spot in a B/W copy of a photo
can't see the well defined bullet hole in a crisp color copy of the BOH
photo. I guess that's what happens when you look at the evidence through
the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist.
mainframetech
2018-08-13 06:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things.
So you think they all lied?
What's the matter with you? Did you see me say anything at ALL about
lying?
You just suggested that even though they said they looked at the photos in
10X magnification that doesn't mean they actually did that. If they said
they did that and hadn't actually done that, it would be a lie. So the
choices are that they actually looked at the photos with 10X magnification
or they lied. Which one are you going with?
Post by mainframetech
If you read further, you'd have had an explanation for my words,
but as usual, you jumped too quickly and got tangled up again.
Oh, this should be good.
As an LN you apparently devolve immediately to lying as something
people do. My meaning was that they didn't spend the time the photos
required for them to realize that some of them were completely phony and
altered. The amount of magnification doesn't matter if they aren't going
to concentrate on the views.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo,
Why would you assume something as silly as they just breezed through the
photos. Oh, that's right. They didn't see things your way. That's the only
possible explanation. It couldn't be because they knew what that were
talking about and you don't.
More foolishness. Why not try and debate like adults? It has nothing
to do with MY way of thinking, it has to do with something that had
already been done that they were asked to look over again. The AR gave
all the reasons and info they needed to determine cause of death, and the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area was not that obvious if you
weren't looking for it. Easy to miss.
So now we are getting closer to the truth. In order to see the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple, you first have to convince yourself one is there.
Then if you see a dark spot you can say, "AHA!!! There it is.". You can
also then tell everyone how obvious it is even though it is easy to miss.
WRONG again! In my case, I didn't wonder until I saw in the case
references to a bullet hole in the forehead of JFK. THEN I went and
actually LOOKED for it, and so I saw it. You can nitpick until the cows
come home, but you won't get any of this without relaxing and listening
with an open mind.
Post by bigdog
The review panels were tasked with looking at the medical evidence, i.e.
the photos and x-rays, and determining whether the original autopsy
findings were valid. You are suggesting they were derelict in their duty
and did nothing more than rubber stamp those findings without actually
examining the evidence. Of course you would have to claim the Clark Panel
and Rockefeller Commission did the same.
I believe they didn't have the same 'energy' for the job that might
have ben useful. The problem had already been solved and they knew that
they were being asked to review it all because of people complaining that
there were all kinds of conspiracies going on. I don't know how
'energized' they were when the reviewed, but it may have been less than
optimum for some of them once they realized they were just going over
something that was already solved.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Amazing that the same bullet hole you tell us is obvious can't easily be
seen.
How f***ing stupid can people get? That has been answered many times.
Please stop repeating everything all over again.
You're right. It is pretty stupid to say something can be both obvious and
not easily seen.
Which statement shows your complete lack of ability to understand a
simple situation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
So you do think they lied.
WRONG! We're talking about 2 different groups of people here. I don't
think the Kennedys lied, nor any other family or friends. The second
group are the ones that were in charge of modifying photos and showing
evidence to the panels. Just showing the phony 'leaked' autopsy photos
was a form of lying, since they were altered, which was proven.
Who modified the photos and what is your evidence the review panels saw
altered photos?
The people that altered the photos didn't admit to me they did it.
So I can't help you there. However, the photos we've seen that are
supposed to be 'leaked' definitely have some photos altered. That was
obvious to the average person.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using a drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
I wish they had made the autopsy pictures public just as I wish the WC had
but that doesn't mean I think they had a sinister reason for not doing so.
I don't need to dream up something so ridiculous to bolster my beliefs.
WRONG! That failed as a cover up. The 'leaked' autopsy photos
apparently were the ones they showed to others as if they were real and
not altered. Just one more reason for the panels to get it wrong.
As you do with all the evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, you invent
an excuse to dismiss it. The autopsy photos don't show what you want to
believe so you assume they were altered. You show know evidence that such
alteration was done.
Repeat: I do not dismiss evidence. I've proved that the 'leaked'
photos have altered photos among them, and you've been there when I did
it. Why do you come up with that repetitious argument all over again?
Don't you get tired of repeatng yourself?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense, or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
You are a person who is foolish enough to think you can make a better
judgement with far less evidence, experience, and knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled.
Right. All of them. But you look at one photo and see what they missed
looking at all the photos.
You missed it again! There was only one photo that was left in the
'leaked' photos that showed the bullet hole. We have to work with what
we're given.
The review panels saw the original of the SOD photo through 10X
magnification and they didn't see your bullet hole.
You have no evidence that they actually looked at the photo in
question, or if they did, how hard they looked.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
If you see things that knowledgeable people don't, wouldn't it make sense
to question your own judgement rather than theirs?
I'm familiar with the amount of care I put to various problems, but
not with what others use. So when I get a 'mismatch' I look elsewhere
first, THEN if that is OK, I recheck myself. Either way it get done.
So are you saying none of the review panels put much care into their work?
Did you see me say that? The panels were people like us, with some
expertise in a profession. But human foibles.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it's time for me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Quote him saying he sees a bullet hole in your forehead/temple.
I'm not going to search through 30 images and text for you,
So again you expect me to search through 30 images and text looking for a
non-existent quote to support something you have claimed. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
when
nothing is going to wean you from the WCR that you cuddle with. The image
022 was good enough to tell you that he decided that the bullets in the
throat and forehead/temple area Were from the front.
The question was not whether he believes the head shot was fired from in
front. You claimed he was a person who said he saw your forehead/temple
bullet hole.
NO! I said there was a name to be added to those and his was it. And if
you heard anything else, I hereby correct it to mean what I just said.
Post by bigdog
I asked you to support that claim and apparently unable to do
so, you try to shift the burden to me. His diagrams don't show the bullet
striking your forehead/temple and his text doesn't say it struck there
either. The only line from his SoGK shooter's position and the supposed
BOH exit goes through the center of the forehead, not your
forehead/temple.
WRONG again! You didn't listen once again and made you usual mistakes!
The line does NOT show bullet path, it shows a direction that JFK was
looking in at the time of the shot. Ten times I've had to say it.



Here's some text from the image 028 o the article in question:

"However I could exactly measure 27 degrees and my logic for doing so runs
like this. If 25.7 degrees was the direction JFK's head was pointed from
direction of travel (profile) at the instant he was shot, and the bullet
entered his right temple (or right forehead as several witnesses reported)
and exited the right occiput this means that the bullet itself traversed
an angle, however small, versus the centre line of the skull."

http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/

image 028
Post by bigdog
It is impossible to draw a line from the shooter's
location through the forehead/temple and have it exit the BOH. It would
seem a magic bullet is called for here.
Not at all, but you need a magic brain. One that sees and understands
what people tell you. From the position the head was facing, a shot to
the forehead/temple area would go through the skull and come out at the
rear or BOH slightly on the right side of the occiput. It works
perfectly.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
It's been explained to you why a drawing was substituted for photographs
in the final report. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.
Oh, I heard that one years ago, about not wanting anyone to see JFK
dead, so they used the drawings. But if that's the case, then they showed
the drawings which we know were faked in at least one case, to the medical
panels and since the drawing had a faked bullet hole on it, and the photo
it copied did NOT, the experts were misled! How many other photos were
done the same way? Faked. And remember, the drawings were almost exactly
like the autopsy photos except for the added stuff that shouldn't be
there. It really showed JFK in almost exactly how he looked, since her
style of drawing was in a documentary mode, exactly like a B&W photo.
Why do you keep insisting the review panel based their findings on a
drawing and not the photos when they stated flatly they looked at the
photos in 10X magnification and the transparencies in stereo? Do you think
they were lying when they said that or do you think they actually did what
they said?
I think they were already full of the autopsy Report (AR), and the
photos were simply extras as backup. But it was also clear to me that the
HSCA was determined not to let any conspiracy proof come out of their
report, yet it was there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With that phony excuse, they could modify the drawings any way they
wanted to make the panels think it was a kill shot from the BOH that did
the job.
I'll type it slower this time. The panels looked at the PHOTOS to based
their conclusions. They did not base their conclusions on the drawings.
Those drawings were the product of their findings, not the source of them.
I'll say it even slower...the photo was available to the panels, so
why show the drawing?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
It's a good thing we have an untrained layman such as yourself to
straighten them out.
It doesn't matter my level of expertise, or lack of it.
Not to you.
Post by mainframetech
These things were all OBVIOUS to the average person when pointed out.
Your standard statement when making claims for which there is no evidence.
Just say it is obvious.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
You must think yours are established facts. <chuckle>
Nope, I'm in the process of establishing them!
Take your time. We still have 82 years left in this century.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know
what you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations?
Because that would have been dumb and dumber.
Well, there ya go!
But not nearly as dumb as thinking that's what they actually did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
The bullet holes is there despite your denials.
I rather think your denials are the ones going on at the moment. The
photo of the BOH is clear and the quality is good enough to see a bullet
hole if it looked like the drawing, but there's nothing on the photo that
is even remotely like the drawing as to bullet holes! Never mind that the
photo is also missing the 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39
eyewitnesses that corroborate each other.
The man who sees a bullet hole in a dark spot in a B/W copy of a photo
can't see the well defined bullet hole in a crisp color copy of the BOH
photo. I guess that's what happens when you look at the evidence through
the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist.
I offer the photos in question for the jury (everyone) to look over and
decide which has a bullet hole (or something like one) and which has
nothing:

Loading Image...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-17 00:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things.
So you think they all lied?
What's the matter with you? Did you see me say anything at ALL about
lying?
You just suggested that even though they said they looked at the photos in
10X magnification that doesn't mean they actually did that. If they said
they did that and hadn't actually done that, it would be a lie. So the
choices are that they actually looked at the photos with 10X magnification
or they lied. Which one are you going with?
Post by mainframetech
If you read further, you'd have had an explanation for my words,
but as usual, you jumped too quickly and got tangled up again.
Oh, this should be good.
As an LN you apparently devolve immediately to lying as something
people do. My meaning was that they didn't spend the time the photos
required for them to realize that some of them were completely phony and
altered. The amount of magnification doesn't matter if they aren't going
to concentrate on the views.
How do you know how much time they spent looking at the photos?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo,
Why would you assume something as silly as they just breezed through the
photos. Oh, that's right. They didn't see things your way. That's the only
possible explanation. It couldn't be because they knew what that were
talking about and you don't.
More foolishness. Why not try and debate like adults? It has nothing
to do with MY way of thinking, it has to do with something that had
already been done that they were asked to look over again. The AR gave
all the reasons and info they needed to determine cause of death, and the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area was not that obvious if you
weren't looking for it. Easy to miss.
So now we are getting closer to the truth. In order to see the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple, you first have to convince yourself one is there.
Then if you see a dark spot you can say, "AHA!!! There it is.". You can
also then tell everyone how obvious it is even though it is easy to miss.
WRONG again! In my case, I didn't wonder until I saw in the case
references to a bullet hole in the forehead of JFK. THEN I went and
actually LOOKED for it, and so I saw it. You can nitpick until the cows
come home, but you won't get any of this without relaxing and listening
with an open mind.
As I said, first you had to believe there was one there before you could
see it. Then whatever spot you saw you told yourself, "There's the bullet
hole".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The review panels were tasked with looking at the medical evidence, i.e.
the photos and x-rays, and determining whether the original autopsy
findings were valid. You are suggesting they were derelict in their duty
and did nothing more than rubber stamp those findings without actually
examining the evidence. Of course you would have to claim the Clark Panel
and Rockefeller Commission did the same.
I believe they didn't have the same 'energy' for the job that might
have ben useful.
You believe a lot of things for which there is no evidence. Not one person
on those three panels was interested enough to closely examine the photos.
I guess that makes sense to you.
Post by mainframetech
The problem had already been solved and they knew that
they were being asked to review it all because of people complaining that
there were all kinds of conspiracies going on. I don't know how
'energized' they were when the reviewed, but it may have been less than
optimum for some of them once they realized they were just going over
something that was already solved.
I guess that's your excuse for why ALL of them disagree with you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Amazing that the same bullet hole you tell us is obvious can't easily be
seen.
How f***ing stupid can people get? That has been answered many times.
Please stop repeating everything all over again.
You're right. It is pretty stupid to say something can be both obvious and
not easily seen.
Which statement shows your complete lack of ability to understand a
simple situation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
So you do think they lied.
WRONG! We're talking about 2 different groups of people here. I don't
think the Kennedys lied, nor any other family or friends. The second
group are the ones that were in charge of modifying photos and showing
evidence to the panels. Just showing the phony 'leaked' autopsy photos
was a form of lying, since they were altered, which was proven.
Who modified the photos and what is your evidence the review panels saw
altered photos?
The people that altered the photos didn't admit to me they did it.
So I can't help you there.
So in the conspiracy hobbyist world, the fact that nobody admitted to
altering the photos is evidence they did alter the photos. How would that
differ from what the evidence would look like if no one altered the
photos?
Post by mainframetech
However, the photos we've seen that are
supposed to be 'leaked' definitely have some photos altered. That was
obvious to the average person.
When you say obvious, that means you don't have a scrap of evidence to
support your statement.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using a drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
I wish they had made the autopsy pictures public just as I wish the WC had
but that doesn't mean I think they had a sinister reason for not doing so.
I don't need to dream up something so ridiculous to bolster my beliefs.
WRONG! That failed as a cover up. The 'leaked' autopsy photos
apparently were the ones they showed to others as if they were real and
not altered. Just one more reason for the panels to get it wrong.
As you do with all the evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, you invent
an excuse to dismiss it. The autopsy photos don't show what you want to
believe so you assume they were altered. You show know evidence that such
alteration was done.
Repeat: I do not dismiss evidence. I've proved that the 'leaked'
photos have altered photos among them, and you've been there when I did
it. Why do you come up with that repetitious argument all over again?
Don't you get tired of repeatng yourself?
That's proof by assertion. The proof of alteration is that you say so.
That's good enough.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense, or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
You are a person who is foolish enough to think you can make a better
judgement with far less evidence, experience, and knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled.
Right. All of them. But you look at one photo and see what they missed
looking at all the photos.
You missed it again! There was only one photo that was left in the
'leaked' photos that showed the bullet hole. We have to work with what
we're given.
The review panels saw the original of the SOD photo through 10X
magnification and they didn't see your bullet hole.
You have no evidence that they actually looked at the photo in
question, or if they did, how hard they looked.
Is this really the best you could do? They didn't see what you see because
they didn't look hard enough at the photos. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
If you see things that knowledgeable people don't, wouldn't it make sense
to question your own judgement rather than theirs?
I'm familiar with the amount of care I put to various problems, but
not with what others use. So when I get a 'mismatch' I look elsewhere
first, THEN if that is OK, I recheck myself. Either way it get done.
So are you saying none of the review panels put much care into their work?
Did you see me say that?
Pretty much. In just this post you have said:

"I believe they didn't have the same 'energy' for the job that might
have ben useful."

"I don't know how 'energized' they were when the reviewed, but it may have
been less than optimum for some of them once they realized they were just
going over something that was already solved."

"You have no evidence that they actually looked at the photo in
question, or if they did, how hard they looked."

If that's not saying they didn't put much care into their work, I don't
know what would.
Post by mainframetech
The panels were people like us, with some
expertise in a profession. But human foibles.
So they didn't put much care into their work. Not one person. On three
separate panels. It's a good thing for us you picked up the slack.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it's time for me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Quote him saying he sees a bullet hole in your forehead/temple.
I'm not going to search through 30 images and text for you,
So again you expect me to search through 30 images and text looking for a
non-existent quote to support something you have claimed. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
when
nothing is going to wean you from the WCR that you cuddle with. The image
022 was good enough to tell you that he decided that the bullets in the
throat and forehead/temple area Were from the front.
The question was not whether he believes the head shot was fired from in
front. You claimed he was a person who said he saw your forehead/temple
bullet hole.
NO! I said there was a name to be added to those and his was it. And if
you heard anything else, I hereby correct it to mean what I just said.
A difference without a distinction. Are you claiming he saw your bullet
hole or not? If your answer is yes, quote him saying that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I asked you to support that claim and apparently unable to do
so, you try to shift the burden to me. His diagrams don't show the bullet
striking your forehead/temple and his text doesn't say it struck there
either. The only line from his SoGK shooter's position and the supposed
BOH exit goes through the center of the forehead, not your
forehead/temple.
WRONG again! You didn't listen once again and made you usual mistakes!
The line does NOT show bullet path, it shows a direction that JFK was
looking in at the time of the shot. Ten times I've had to say it.
That's the point. He's not showing the bullet path. So how do you
determine he has the bullet entering at your "forehead/temple".
Post by mainframetech
"However I could exactly measure 27 degrees and my logic for doing so runs
like this. If 25.7 degrees was the direction JFK's head was pointed from
direction of travel (profile) at the instant he was shot, and the bullet
entered his right temple (or right forehead as several witnesses reported)
and exited the right occiput this means that the bullet itself traversed
an angle, however small, versus the centre line of the skull."
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/
image 028
A lot of ifs. Yet neither he nor you can show a straight line from the
alleged shooter's location, entering the "forehead/temple" and exiting the
right occiput. Such a straight line doesn't exist. It is geometrically
impossible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It is impossible to draw a line from the shooter's
location through the forehead/temple and have it exit the BOH. It would
seem a magic bullet is called for here.
Not at all, but you need a magic brain.
You have inadvertently made a true statement.
Post by mainframetech
One that sees and understands
what people tell you. From the position the head was facing, a shot to
the forehead/temple area would go through the skull and come out at the
rear or BOH slightly on the right side of the occiput. It works
perfectly.
You can say that but you can't diagram it because the latter is impossible
and you know it. A straight line from the shooter's location to your
"forehead/temple" doesn't continue out the BOH no matter how many times
you claim it does.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
It's been explained to you why a drawing was substituted for photographs
in the final report. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.
Oh, I heard that one years ago, about not wanting anyone to see JFK
dead, so they used the drawings. But if that's the case, then they showed
the drawings which we know were faked in at least one case, to the medical
panels and since the drawing had a faked bullet hole on it, and the photo
it copied did NOT, the experts were misled! How many other photos were
done the same way? Faked. And remember, the drawings were almost exactly
like the autopsy photos except for the added stuff that shouldn't be
there. It really showed JFK in almost exactly how he looked, since her
style of drawing was in a documentary mode, exactly like a B&W photo.
Why do you keep insisting the review panel based their findings on a
drawing and not the photos when they stated flatly they looked at the
photos in 10X magnification and the transparencies in stereo? Do you think
they were lying when they said that or do you think they actually did what
they said?
I think they were already full of the autopsy Report (AR), and the
photos were simply extras as backup. But it was also clear to me that the
HSCA was determined not to let any conspiracy proof come out of their
report, yet it was there.
You didn't answer the question. Either they lied or they really did look
at the photos in 10X magnification. Which one do you believe?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With that phony excuse, they could modify the drawings any way they
wanted to make the panels think it was a kill shot from the BOH that did
the job.
I'll type it slower this time. The panels looked at the PHOTOS to based
their conclusions. They did not base their conclusions on the drawings.
Those drawings were the product of their findings, not the source of them.
I'll say it even slower...the photo was available to the panels, so
why show the drawing?
I gave you the full answer in the thread "Another question for
Chris/mainframetech". It should post shortly. Please copy the answer and
save it this time so you don't keep coming back with the same inane
question that has been answered several times already.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
It's a good thing we have an untrained layman such as yourself to
straighten them out.
It doesn't matter my level of expertise, or lack of it.
Not to you.
Post by mainframetech
These things were all OBVIOUS to the average person when pointed out.
Your standard statement when making claims for which there is no evidence.
Just say it is obvious.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
You must think yours are established facts. <chuckle>
Nope, I'm in the process of establishing them!
Take your time. We still have 82 years left in this century.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know
what you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations?
Because that would have been dumb and dumber.
Well, there ya go!
But not nearly as dumb as thinking that's what they actually did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
The bullet holes is there despite your denials.
I rather think your denials are the ones going on at the moment. The
photo of the BOH is clear and the quality is good enough to see a bullet
hole if it looked like the drawing, but there's nothing on the photo that
is even remotely like the drawing as to bullet holes! Never mind that the
photo is also missing the 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 39
eyewitnesses that corroborate each other.
The man who sees a bullet hole in a dark spot in a B/W copy of a photo
can't see the well defined bullet hole in a crisp color copy of the BOH
photo. I guess that's what happens when you look at the evidence through
the Coke bottle glasses of the conspiracy hobbyist.
I offer the photos in question for the jury (everyone) to look over and
decide which has a bullet hole (or something like one) and which has
Most people will have no trouble seeing a bullet hole in the photo
precisely where the drawing shows it. Somebody recently posted a sharper
copy of that same photo and the bullet hole is even more vivid.
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-11 21:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 12:36:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Original-Trace: 8 Aug 2018 21:11:01 -0500, 166.84.1.3
Lines: 580
X-Trace: sv3-ASpIA2mnAgrWamGvCINFsgjAxtg/s770uaKn0in5UTcX0rKb/ARYXLWNGRav+7Lt4fUrfQx1ce6GZh0!QwUxxj53GkVoX0xWXGuDatsnKuFnseUqfP9uuPfgPJOmCILFH7dykcnvqeCOhO6TH95zeNKRJidt!f70Bo5Wb2yi09kUNdto=
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 23431
X-Original-Bytes: 23337
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:45:08 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote=
Post by mainframetech
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 10:29:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech w=
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 10:51:33 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Gal=
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:46:19 PM UTC-4, BT George wro=
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the=
CT coffin.=20
Post by mainframetech
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HIST=
ORY.
Post by mainframetech
=20
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical ev=
idence--indeed,=20
Post by mainframetech
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the presi=
dent's head was=20
Post by mainframetech
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulati=
on necrosis of=20
Post by mainframetech
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr.=
Wecht=20
Post by mainframetech
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure=
sign' of an=20
Post by mainframetech
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than f=
ifty autopsy=20
Post by mainframetech
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the =
term COAGULATION=20
Post by mainframetech
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to defin=
e the term for=20
Post by mainframetech
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the der=
mis [outer layer=20
Post by mainframetech
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen,=
the protein=20
Post by mainframetech
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. Th=
e changes in the=20
Post by mainframetech
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects =
of the bullet in=20
Post by mainframetech
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are p=
roduced by the=20
Post by mainframetech
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These =
collagen=20
Post by mainframetech
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. The=
y cannot be seen=20
Post by mainframetech
by the naked eye.'
=20
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that alt=
hough, as he=20
Post by mainframetech
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion =
collars, 'ALL=20
Post by mainframetech
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings=
of coagulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or tho=
se of other=20
Post by mainframetech
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the der=
mis can only be=20
Post by mainframetech
seen by use of a microscope.
=20
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of co=
agulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one=
, would you not?'
Post by mainframetech
=20
'Yes, I would.'
=20
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost uni=
versal view that=20
Post by mainframetech
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very=
inferior and=20
Post by mainframetech
amateurish post-mortem?'
=20
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the=
coagulation=20
Post by mainframetech
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in=
this type of=20
Post by mainframetech
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or =
Boswell.' It=20
Post by mainframetech
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Fi=
nck at the time=20
Post by mainframetech
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of=
the Armed Forces=20
Post by mainframetech
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked'=
by Humes to=20
Post by mainframetech
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the=
wounds. . .It=20
Post by mainframetech
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was=
to study the=20
Post by mainframetech
wounds.'
=20
So we see that despite the insistent and strident cla=
ims by conspiracy=20
Post by mainframetech
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head wa=
s fired from his=20
Post by mainframetech
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence p=
roves not just=20
Post by mainframetech
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it wa=
s fired from his=20
Post by mainframetech
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's he=
ad was an=20
Post by mainframetech
entrance wound.
=20
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)=20
=20
Mark
=20
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi hi=
mself takes=20
Post by mainframetech
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as inco=
mpetent, nor as=20
Post by mainframetech
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended=
to think. =20
Post by mainframetech
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *=
Forensic*=20
Post by mainframetech
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral=
Burkley and=20
Post by mainframetech
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain pr=
ocedures, they=20
Post by mainframetech
did a pretty admirable job.
=20
Brock (BT) George
=20
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts=
highly=20
Post by mainframetech
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers thin=
k they can=20
Post by mainframetech
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and over=
night become=20
Post by mainframetech
experts on such highly technical matters.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appe=
ars as the=20
Post by mainframetech
guru of all professions.
=20
=20
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the =
real=20
Post by mainframetech
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
=20
=20
=20
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
=20
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have =
to=20
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
=20
=20
=20
=20
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wr=
ong=20
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say=
if=20
plain foolish.=20
=20
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an=20
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than=
=20
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have=
=20
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you=20
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better=20
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.=
=20
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you=20
something but evidently doesn't.
=20
How stupid can humans get? If experts do not see the critical
photograph, or they do not see the part of a photo that gives away the
reason for death, then they will make a mistake. If they are misled, they
could make a mistake. By following them blindly no one would have ever
known that the kill shot was from the front, completely killing the whole
SBT and the WCR that depends on it. Experts can be misled or make a
mistake, since they're human. But of course, you knew all this from the
many other times you didn't understand it and had to ask about it.
The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is=20
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible wit=
h=20
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are=20
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they AL=
L=20
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories=
=20
to be true.
Ah, the psychology guru today! Changed hats again. You know more of
the minds around you than you do your own. Geez! The image you must have
of yourself!
=20
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did=20
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used t=
he=20
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
=20
=20
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Not really. Perhaps you'll explain that, since I can show solid
proof of my statement. Simply go to the link I will provide and read the
text, which explains that they used the drawing, but gave NO REASON for
doing it. Then go to the next page where they show the Drawing itself in
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7=
_0057a.htm
Pages 103-104
=20
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't=
=20
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as=20
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even! =
=20
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
=20
=20
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.=
=20
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because=20
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on publi=
c=20
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos a=
s=20
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
So what you're saying is that the authorities were giving out Ida Doxs
drawings from the first medical panel right through. And since we know
the BOH photo had NO BULLET HOLE and was used to PRETEND there was a
bullet hole in the BOH, that other photos were also drawn and shown to the
panels. So they never saw ANY real photos, only the Dox Drawings. Now is
that right?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_=
Vol7_0057a.htm
=20
page 103-104
=20
=20
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For=
=20
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn'=
t=20
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the=
=20
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looke=
d=20
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments=20
bites the dust.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things.
So you think they all lied?
Well, some expert lied when he said he looked at the X-rays and said he
could see a perfectly round bullet hole on the skull exactly 6.5 mm in
diameter and said that it was caused by an Oswald bullet. But Oswald
bullets are 6.8 mm in diameter and he knew nothing about bullets. Oops!
Post by bigdog
Sine they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo,
Why would you assume something as silly as they just breezed through the
photos. Oh, that's right. They didn't see things your way. That's the only
possible explanation. It couldn't be because they knew what that were
talking about and you don't.
the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Amazing that the same bullet hole you tell us is obvious can't easily be
seen.
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
So you do think they lied.
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
I wish they had made the autopsy pictures public just as I wish the WC had
but that doesn't mean I think they had a sinister reason for not doing so.
I don't need to dream up something so ridiculous to bolster my beliefs.
=20
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his=20
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everythin=
g,=20
Post by mainframetech
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' w=
hom he=20
Post by mainframetech
doesn't give credit to.=20
=20
=20
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than=
=20
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when=
they=20
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
=20
=20
=20
=20
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consens=
us,=20
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
=20
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I=
=20
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no=20
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have=
=20
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about=
=20
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and=20
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an=
=20
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your=
=20
own.
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense., or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
You are a person who is foolish enough to think you can make a better
judgement with far less evidence, experience, and knowledge.
If we believed=20
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.=
=20
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would=
=20
stop.
=20
=20
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you=
=20
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own=
=20
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what=
=20
they are talking about. That ain't you.
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled.
Right. All of them. But you look at one photo and see what they missed
looking at all the photos.
If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
If you see things that knowledgeable people don't, wouldn't it make sense
to question your own judgement rather than theirs?
And it's time fore me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Quote him saying he sees a bullet hole in your forehead/temple.
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need=
an=20
Post by mainframetech
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the questio=
n can=20
Post by mainframetech
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic o=
f a=20
Post by mainframetech
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert =
to tell=20
Post by mainframetech
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what =
a hole=20
Post by mainframetech
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert=
to=20
Post by mainframetech
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
=20
=20
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by lo=
oking=20
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of p=
hotos=20
and x-rays.
=20
=20
=20
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof=
of=20
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA'=
s=20
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they=
=20
didn't do their job very well.=20
=20
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.=
=20
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at=20
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
It's been explained to you why a drawing was substituted for photographs
in the final report. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.
=20
Of course, this was a situation they were=20
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read =
the=20
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to man=
y=20
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
=20
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
It's a good thing we have an untrained layman such as yourself to
straighten them out.
=20
Post by mainframetech
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on t=
hese issues.=20
Post by mainframetech
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation s=
pend billions=20
Post by mainframetech
on education.
=20
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as lia=
rs and frauds=20
Post by mainframetech
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
=20
=20
=20
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.=20
=20
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories=
so their=20
Post by mainframetech
opinions must be wrong.
=20
=20
=20
=20
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm intereste=
d in=20
Post by mainframetech
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for ins=
tance)=20
Post by mainframetech
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
=20
=20
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what =
they=20
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've=
=20
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
=20
=20
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are=20
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far=
=20
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
You must think yours are established facts. <chuckle>
=20
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused=20
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for se=
eing=20
Post by mainframetech
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
=20
=20
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories=
to be=20
Post by mainframetech
true.
=20
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially =
when they=20
Post by mainframetech
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from =
Ida Dox as=20
Post by mainframetech
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph th=
at the=20
Post by mainframetech
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can af=
fect the=20
Post by mainframetech
=20
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/ht=
ml/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Post by mainframetech
=20
Go to the next page from the explanation.
=20
=20
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
=20
=20
=20
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA wo=
uld use=20
Post by mainframetech
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
=20
=20
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-r=
ays.=20
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
=20
=20
=20
=20
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the=
=20
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove i=
ts=20
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HS=
CA=20
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
=20
=20
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel=20
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared=
=20
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what=
=20
you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations?
Because that would have been dumb and dumber.
After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
The bullet holes is there despite your denials.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-11 21:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say if
plain foolish.
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you
something but evidently doesn't.
How stupid can humans get? If experts do not see the critical
photograph, or they do not see the part of a photo that gives away the
reason for death, then they will make a mistake. If they are misled, they
could make a mistake. By following them blindly no one would have ever
known that the kill shot was from the front, completely killing the whole
SBT and the WCR that depends on it. Experts can be misled or make a
mistake, since they're human. But of course, you knew all this from the
many other times you didn't understand it and had to ask about it.
Post by bigdog
The real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible with
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they ALL
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories
to be true.
Ah, the psychology guru today! Changed hats again. You know more of
the minds around you than you do your own. Geez! The image you must have
of yourself!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
An example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used the
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Not really. Perhaps you'll explain that, since I can show solid
proof of my statement. Simply go to the link I will provide and read the
text, which explains that they used the drawing, but gave NO REASON for
doing it. Then go to the next page where they show the Drawing itself in
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Pages 103-104
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Any thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even!
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on public
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos as
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
So what you're saying is that the authorities were giving out Ida Doxs
drawings from the first medical panel right through. And since we know
Silly. Ida Dox did her drawings only for the HSCA.
Don't you remember the Rydberg diagrams that the WC used?
Can you find even one WC defender who defends those?

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
the BOH photo had NO BULLET HOLE and was used to PRETEND there was a
bullet hole in the BOH, that other photos were also drawn and shown to the
panels. So they never saw ANY real photos, only the Dox Drawings. Now is
that right?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn't
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looked
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments
bites the dust.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things. Sine they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo, the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consensus,
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your
own.
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense., or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If we believed
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would
stop.
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what
they are talking about. That ain't you.
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled. If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
And it's time fore me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof of
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA's
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they
didn't do their job very well.
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, this was a situation they were
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read the
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to many
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove its
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HSCA
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what
you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations? After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-07 15:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
Post by mainframetech
It becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The difference is between honest and dishonest, seeking the truth or
covering it up. WC defenders can not even see the obvious and are not
allowed to admit anything.

The necrosis would have to be near the EOP. Is that where YOU see the
entrance wound?
<crickets>
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 02:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
Post by mainframetech
I've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetech
Your point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
So you always refuse to look at evidence. Not a surprise.
bigdog
2018-08-03 04:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
mainframetech
2018-08-04 02:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!

That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-08-05 04:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.

You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.

You're a conspiracist. Conspiracists always know better than experts
because in conspiracy world, the experts are part of the conspiracy.
mainframetech
2018-08-06 04:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.
You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.
WRONG! I do NOT 'claim' "superior Knowledge" over the experts. I've
learned some things while doing research on this case, but not anywhere
near to passing any of the exams the experts have to pass. However, there
are some things that don't require an expert to tell us what it is. Like
a hole in something. I know what a hole in something is and how to
recognize it from life experience, and so do you, or you should anyway.
I, and many others have seen a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area of
the stare-of-death photo, and it's not easy to se if you're not looking
for it. Yet 2 of the autopsy team were able to see it, and comment on it,
and thought it might have been made by a bullet. They were James Jenkins
and Pierre Finck. Finck was the best expert in the forensics field that
actually SAW the body and the wound in question.

It is doubtful that Finck's comments were carried forward to all the
medical panels that were invited to investigate the results of the AR.
They reread the AR and passed through the photos they were allowed to see,
and they definitely did not see the bullet hole in the forehead, or they
would have come to a different decision as to the cause of death. So the
experts were human and didn't examine each photo with a fine magnifying
glass.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
You're a conspiracist. Conspiracists always know better than experts
because in conspiracy world, the experts are part of the conspiracy.
You've made your opinion known. You should be proud.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-07 04:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.
You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.
WRONG! I do NOT 'claim' "superior Knowledge" over the experts.
Yet you are constantly substituting your opinions for theirs.
Post by mainframetech
I've
learned some things while doing research on this case, but not anywhere
near to passing any of the exams the experts have to pass. However, there
are some things that don't require an expert to tell us what it is.
If these things don't require experts, laymen such as yourself would reach
the same conclusions as the experts. When all the experts reach one
conclusion and you reach a different one, it isn't hard to figure out whom
to believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like
a hole in something. I know what a hole in something is and how to
recognize it from life experience,
Are you saying all those medical examiners didn't have such life
experience in addition to all their training.
Post by mainframetech
and so do you, or you should anyway.
I, and many others have seen a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area of
the stare-of-death photo, and it's not easy to se if you're not looking
for it. Yet 2 of the autopsy team were able to see it, and comment on it,
and thought it might have been made by a bullet. They were James Jenkins
and Pierre Finck. Finck was the best expert in the forensics field that
actually SAW the body and the wound in question.
It is the height of silliness for you to continue to use Jenkins and Finck
to support your imaginary forehead/temple wound when you know they placed
it elsewhere. Just one more instance in which you have modified what
witnesses have said to fit your theories.
Post by mainframetech
It is doubtful that Finck's comments were carried forward to all the
medical panels that were invited to investigate the results of the AR.
They reread the AR and passed through the photos they were allowed to see,
and they definitely did not see the bullet hole in the forehead,
Of course they didn't because it wasn't there.
Post by mainframetech
or they
would have come to a different decision as to the cause of death. So the
experts were human and didn't examine each photo with a fine magnifying
glass.
So after starting this post by saying you don't claim superior knowledge
over the experts you are now claiming superior knowledge over the experts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
You're a conspiracist. Conspiracists always know better than experts
because in conspiracy world, the experts are part of the conspiracy.
You've made your opinion known. You should be proud.
You shouldn't.
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.
You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.
WRONG! I do NOT 'claim' "superior Knowledge" over the experts.
Yet you are constantly substituting your opinions for theirs.
WRONG again! I do not substitute mine for theirs. Theirs stands as
they made it. Mine the same. The reader has a choice. I may run down a
opinion of someone else, but never dismiss as you sometimes do.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've
learned some things while doing research on this case, but not anywhere
near to passing any of the exams the experts have to pass. However, there
are some things that don't require an expert to tell us what it is.
If these things don't require experts, laymen such as yourself would reach
the same conclusions as the experts. When all the experts reach one
conclusion and you reach a different one, it isn't hard to figure out whom
to believe.
Depends on the situation. If I saw a body before burial and saw that
it had a bullet hole in it, and an expert said he didn't see a bullet
hole, I would make it clear that his opinion was made with far less
information than mine. Simple.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Like
a hole in something. I know what a hole in something is and how to
recognize it from life experience,
Are you saying all those medical examiners didn't have such life
experience in addition to all their training.
Don't be so foolish as to try to put words in my mouth. You haven't
the background for it. In the case of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area, I don't believe they looked very hard, and the
bullet hole was hard to see if you didn't know what you were looking for
and didn't ENLARGE the photo.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and so do you, or you should anyway.
I, and many others have seen a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area of
the stare-of-death photo, and it's not easy to see if you're not looking
for it. Yet 2 of the autopsy team were able to see it, and comment on it,
and thought it might have been made by a bullet. They were James Jenkins
and Pierre Finck. Finck was the best expert in the forensics field that
actually SAW the body and the wound in question.
It is the height of silliness for you to continue to use Jenkins and Finck
to support your imaginary forehead/temple wound when you know they placed
it elsewhere. Just one more instance in which you have modified what
witnesses have said to fit your theories.
THEY DID NOT PLACE IT ELSEHWERE. THE HEIGHTS ARE REACHED BY YOU
TRYING TO NITPICK IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
Jenkins said it was in the temporal bone, which wasn't true, since the
only 5 mm size wound was in the forehead/temple area. There can only be
one reason why he said 'temporal' rather than 'temple', and that because
either he made a mistake with something that sounded like it, or someone
else who transcribed it made the mistake. Either way, there was only one
wound of 5 mm in diameter, and that one was in the forehead/temple area.
But of course, you've been informed of all this many times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It is doubtful that Finck's comments were carried forward to all the
medical panels that were invited to investigate the results of the AR.
They reread the AR and passed through the photos they were allowed to see,
and they definitely did not see the bullet hole in the forehead,
Of course they didn't because it wasn't there.
WRONG! Because YOU can't see it, does NOT mean it wasn't there.
There were far too many eyewitnesses that saw it, both here and in the
case.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
or they
would have come to a different decision as to the cause of death. So the
experts were human and didn't examine each photo with a fine magnifying
glass.
So after starting this post by saying you don't claim superior knowledge
over the experts you are now claiming superior knowledge over the experts.
WRONG once again! I don't claim "superior knowledge" over the experts
and I've covered that with you. Try and remember instead of blatting out
the same tired old stuff. Because I specifically looked for a bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area, makes me different than them, but not
necessarily with "superior knowledge".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
You're a conspiracist. Conspiracists always know better than experts
because in conspiracy world, the experts are part of the conspiracy.
You've made your opinion known. You should be proud.
You shouldn't.
Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.
You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.
WRONG! I do NOT 'claim' "superior Knowledge" over the experts.
Yet you are constantly substituting your opinions for theirs.
WRONG again! I do not substitute mine for theirs. Theirs stands as
they made it. Mine the same. The reader has a choice. I may run down a
opinion of someone else, but never dismiss as you sometimes do.
That will be a very easy choice. They can believe experienced
professionals who know their craft and saw so much more of the evidence
than you have or they can believe a layman like you who thinks he can look
at one photo and reach a better conclusion than the professionals did. If
100 people were given that choice, How many do you think would side with
you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've
learned some things while doing research on this case, but not anywhere
near to passing any of the exams the experts have to pass. However, there
are some things that don't require an expert to tell us what it is.
If these things don't require experts, laymen such as yourself would reach
the same conclusions as the experts. When all the experts reach one
conclusion and you reach a different one, it isn't hard to figure out whom
to believe.
Depends on the situation. If I saw a body before burial and saw that
it had a bullet hole in it, and an expert said he didn't see a bullet
hole, I would make it clear that his opinion was made with far less
information than mine. Simple.
You didn't see the body. You saw one photo. They saw lots of photos and
better quality photos. They looked at the photos with 10x magnification.
They are far more knowledgeable than you. Why would anybody take your word
over theirs?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Like
a hole in something. I know what a hole in something is and how to
recognize it from life experience,
Are you saying all those medical examiners didn't have such life
experience in addition to all their training.
Don't be so foolish as to try to put words in my mouth. You haven't
the background for it. In the case of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area, I don't believe they looked very hard, and the
bullet hole was hard to see if you didn't know what you were looking for
So your imaginary bullet hole keeps changing from being "obvious" to being
"hard to see". I love the way you keep contradicting yourself.
Post by mainframetech
and didn't ENLARGE the photo.
Read the HSCA report. They used 10X magnification. You even cited the page
from that report in another thread in which they stated they used 10X
magnification to look at the photos. You'll need to dream up another
excuse since you've under cut yourself on this one.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and so do you, or you should anyway.
I, and many others have seen a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area of
the stare-of-death photo, and it's not easy to see if you're not looking
for it. Yet 2 of the autopsy team were able to see it, and comment on it,
and thought it might have been made by a bullet. They were James Jenkins
and Pierre Finck. Finck was the best expert in the forensics field that
actually SAW the body and the wound in question.
It is the height of silliness for you to continue to use Jenkins and Finck
to support your imaginary forehead/temple wound when you know they placed
it elsewhere. Just one more instance in which you have modified what
witnesses have said to fit your theories.
THEY DID NOT PLACE IT ELSEHWERE.
You place it in the "forehead/temple". Jenkins placed it in the temporal
bone. That is elsewhere.
Post by mainframetech
THE HEIGHTS ARE REACHED BY YOU
TRYING TO NITPICK IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
Jenkins said it was in the temporal bone, which wasn't true,
So you are citing a witness who you claim got it wrong to support you. Real
logical.
Post by mainframetech
since the only 5 mm size wound was in the forehead/temple area.
How do you know there was no other 5mm wound. Can you see under JFK"s hair
in the SOD photo?
Post by mainframetech
There can only be
one reason why he said 'temporal' rather than 'temple', and that because
either he made a mistake with something that sounded like it, or someone
else who transcribed it made the mistake.
Keep stretching.
Post by mainframetech
Either way, there was only one
wound of 5 mm in diameter, and that one was in the forehead/temple area.
But of course, you've been informed of all this many times.
You've tried to misinform me and everyone else with this nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It is doubtful that Finck's comments were carried forward to all the
medical panels that were invited to investigate the results of the AR.
They reread the AR and passed through the photos they were allowed to see,
and they definitely did not see the bullet hole in the forehead,
Of course they didn't because it wasn't there.
WRONG! Because YOU can't see it, does NOT mean it wasn't there.
There were far too many eyewitnesses that saw it, both here and in the
case.
All of them placed it much closer to the AR placement than to your
placement.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
or they
would have come to a different decision as to the cause of death. So the
experts were human and didn't examine each photo with a fine magnifying
glass.
So after starting this post by saying you don't claim superior knowledge
over the experts you are now claiming superior knowledge over the experts.
WRONG once again! I don't claim "superior knowledge" over the experts
and I've covered that with you. Try and remember instead of blatting out
the same tired old stuff. Because I specifically looked for a bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area, makes me different than them, but not
necessarily with "superior knowledge".
You are coming close to admitting you were trying to find a bullet hole
there and you finally found a dark spot you could claim was a bullet hole,
a bullet hole that wasn't seen by far more qualified people than you who
had access to many more and much better photos than you and who looked at
them with 10X magnification.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.
You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.
WRONG! I do NOT 'claim' "superior Knowledge" over the experts.
Yet you are constantly substituting your opinions for theirs.
WRONG again! I do not substitute mine for theirs. Theirs stands as
they made it. Mine the same. The reader has a choice. I may run down a
opinion of someone else, but never dismiss as you sometimes do.
That will be a very easy choice. They can believe experienced
professionals who know their craft and saw so much more of the evidence
than you have or they can believe a layman like you who thinks he can look
at one photo and reach a better conclusion than the professionals did. If
100 people were given that choice, How many do you think would side with
you?
We've had this discussion before many times, I'm tired of wiping
behind your ears to help you understand this simple situation. On top of
which, this has become a 'swamp post' which leads to more problems. I'm
outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
WRONG again! I do not substitute mine for theirs. Theirs stands as
they made it. Mine the same. The reader has a choice. I may run down a
opinion of someone else, but never dismiss as you sometimes do.
That will be a very easy choice. They can believe experienced
professionals who know their craft and saw so much more of the evidence
than you have or they can believe a layman like you who thinks he can look
at one photo and reach a better conclusion than the professionals did. If
100 people were given that choice, How many do you think would side with
you?
We've had this discussion before many times, I'm tired of wiping
behind your ears to help you understand this simple situation. On top of
which, this has become a 'swamp post' which leads to more problems. I'm
outa here.
We both know the answer to my question is ZERO and you just don't want to
admit that.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 16:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
I never cite my expertise on any of these technical matters. Certainly not
over the experts cites here. You cannot cite a single instance where I
have. Because I admit I know nothing about forensic science or ballistics
et cetera.
You're the one claiming superior knowledge over these experts. They didn't
see a bullet hole in the forehead but you know better. Et cetera, et
cetera.
You're a conspiracist. Conspiracists always know better than experts
because in conspiracy world, the experts are part of the conspiracy.
Why can't YOU state the obvious? The necrosis is in the WRONG place. He
saw it where they thought the entrance wound was, down near the EOP, but
now even you and almost all WC defenders claim the real entrance wound
was up in the cowlick area.
Maybe you are trying to argue for TWO entrance wounds to the back of the
head!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
What if I find things that the experts overlooked? Does that make me more
expert than the experts or just luckier and more honest and more dedicated
to the Truth?
Post by mainframetech
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
While you once again state the obvious, no one here thinks they are
better than any one expert, except you. Never mind your humble statements
of lack of knowledge. Experts are human and can make mistakes as well as
anyone, and they can also miss things, and they can be MISLED by others
who might limit the proofs they are allowed to see, so that their
conclusions about a case may be swayed for lack of particular knowledge.
If some of the medical panels were shown the false Ida Dox drawing in
place of a real photo, that would be an example of what I'm speaking of.
And the HSCA was very open about showing that drawing in place of the real
photo. The reason is obvious when you compare the 2. The drawing has a
bullet hole placed on it, right where one of the pathologists said it
should be. Unfortunately, the photo that was copied to make that drawing
had NO BULLET HOLE in the same place!
That drawing was used in the HSCA report on the killing of JFK, and
offered as evidence, which it couldn't possibly be. But there was not a
single squawk from ANY 'experts'.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
Of course, nowhere here have I seen anyone dismiss the medical panels.
They are useful as proof of the scam that was perpetrated on them. The
failure of their abilities was not due to their incompetence, but to the
manipulation done on them.
Post by bigdog
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
Naturally, we must allow for the experts who have the credentials, but
don't have the wisdom to make use of them. Being manipulated and shown
only certain things and forcing a decision that is contrary to truth can
happen.
How about if the experts are not allowed by the government to SEE the
evidence, but it is leaked to The People?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
These men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
It is also why our courts insist on the side presenting expert witnesses
to establish that the witness actually has expertise in the subject in he
will be testifying about. Sometimes the opposing side will stipulate the
expertise of a witness when there is no question of it, but if the
opposing side disputes this, the witness' credentials are presented to the
Such as the Kent State Massacre trial where the defense STIPIULATED to the
epertise of BBS to do the acoustical analysis.

Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot like this? And is there an
echo?
Post by bigdog
court without the jury present and the trial judge will make a
determination if the witness' credentials have been satisfactorily
established. The courts do not want juries being influenced by the
opinions of laymen on highly technical subjects. We of course don't have
But you WC defenders do not accept expert testimony is you don't like it.
And you accept The Three Stooges who botched the autopsy. You are always
hypocrites and bullies. A Kangaroo Court.
Post by bigdog
such a rule on this forum. Anyone can offer an opinion whether they know
what they are talking about or not and quite often, they don't.
mainframetech
2018-08-02 02:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.

Chris
BT George
2018-08-03 02:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
mainframetech
2018-08-04 02:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
Then I better give my true feelings about their abilities. I think
that Humes and Boswell had ben away from pathology and in the training
room for a long time, and some things had slipped away from them, or they
never learned. For example, when Humes probed the back wound with a
finger, it was not a thing a trained person would do, since it might alter
the wound to some degree.

Finck was the person with the training on bullet wounds, and was also a
trained Wound Ballistics person. But to leave out a wound on the wound,
list, particularly one that was on the front o the head, was a serious
mistake. Though to follow their orders, they had to ignore it and not
note it down.

The 2 tchnologists were listed as having assisted at between 50-60
autopsies in the past, and O'Connor came from an environment of a funeral
home in his teens. Jenkins was working on his masters in pathology, so he
wasn't a coffee carrier by any means.

Ebersole (radiologist) was said to be not well trained and wasn't
familiar with doing any of the steps that the X-ray Technicians did,
though he took credit for some of it at ARRB sessions. He made the X-ray
Technicians do all the work, while he 'supervised' and kept at them.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
Then I better give my true feelings about their abilities. I think
that Humes and Boswell had ben away from pathology and in the training
room for a long time, and some things had slipped away from them, or they
never learned. For example, when Humes probed the back wound with a
finger, it was not a thing a trained person would do, since it might alter
the wound to some degree.
So, tell me exactly how many autopsies Humes and Boswell had actually
done before JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Finck was the person with the training on bullet wounds, and was also a
trained Wound Ballistics person. But to leave out a wound on the wound,
list, particularly one that was on the front o the head, was a serious
mistake. Though to follow their orders, they had to ignore it and not
note it down.
The 2 tchnologists were listed as having assisted at between 50-60
autopsies in the past, and O'Connor came from an environment of a funeral
home in his teens. Jenkins was working on his masters in pathology, so he
wasn't a coffee carrier by any means.
Ebersole (radiologist) was said to be not well trained and wasn't
familiar with doing any of the steps that the X-ray Technicians did,
though he took credit for some of it at ARRB sessions. He made the X-ray
Technicians do all the work, while he 'supervised' and kept at them.
Chris
BT George
2018-08-07 05:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
Then I better give my true feelings about their abilities. I think
that Humes and Boswell had ben away from pathology and in the training
room for a long time, and some things had slipped away from them, or they
never learned. For example, when Humes probed the back wound with a
finger, it was not a thing a trained person would do, since it might alter
the wound to some degree.
Uhhh...why should that matter to you? Don't you already have Humes *and*
Boswell *intentionally* altering the wounds beforehand? And now you
complain because he might have contaminated the wound path?
Post by mainframetech
Finck was the person with the training on bullet wounds, and was also a
trained Wound Ballistics person. But to leave out a wound on the wound,
list, particularly one that was on the front o the head, was a serious
mistake. Though to follow their orders, they had to ignore it and not
note it down.
Begging the question. Asking others to assume as true what you assert.
But we don't buy it.
Post by mainframetech
The 2 tchnologists were listed as having assisted at between 50-60
autopsies in the past, and O'Connor came from an environment of a funeral
home in his teens. Jenkins was working on his masters in pathology, so he
wasn't a coffee carrier by any means.
Ebersole (radiologist) was said to be not well trained and wasn't
familiar with doing any of the steps that the X-ray Technicians did,
though he took credit for some of it at ARRB sessions. He made the X-ray
Technicians do all the work, while he 'supervised' and kept at them.
Irrelevant per your theories. Who cares about quality work on an altered
body? I also find the following quite fascinating:

1) You doubt the qualifications and competence of the the original
autopsists.

2) You nevertheless think they were such skilled body alterers that they
managed to fool the next 15-16 FP's who have examined the evidence of
the autposy with access to better quality photos and X-Rays, many of
which are not in the public domain.

It truly is the devious and clever plotters, who in other contexts make
the Keystone Cops appear competent.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
Then I better give my true feelings about their abilities. I think
that Humes and Boswell had ben away from pathology and in the training
room for a long time, and some things had slipped away from them, or they
never learned. For example, when Humes probed the back wound with a
finger, it was not a thing a trained person would do, since it might alter
the wound to some degree.
Uhhh...why should that matter to you? Don't you already have Humes *and*
Boswell *intentionally* altering the wounds beforehand? And now you
complain because he might have contaminated the wound path?
You're not following the conversation. As an example, I mentioned
Humes and his finger.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Finck was the person with the training on bullet wounds, and was also a
trained Wound Ballistics person. But to leave out a wound on the wound
list, particularly one that was on the front of the head, was a serious
mistake. Though to follow their orders, they had to ignore it and not
note it down.
Begging the question. Asking others to assume as true what you assert.
But we don't buy it.
That's fine. Everyone has an opinion.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
The 2 technologists were listed as having assisted at between 50-60
autopsies in the past, and O'Connor came from an environment of a funeral
home in his teens. Jenkins was working on his masters in pathology, so he
wasn't a coffee carrier by any means.
Ebersole (radiologist) was said to be not well trained and wasn't
familiar with doing any of the steps that the X-ray Technicians did,
though he took credit for some of it at ARRB sessions. He made the X-ray
Technicians do all the work, while he 'supervised' and kept at them.
Irrelevant per your theories. Who cares about quality work on an altered
1) You doubt the qualifications and competence of the the original
autopsists.
Not Finck.
Post by BT George
2) You nevertheless think they were such skilled body alterers that they
managed to fool the next 15-16 FP's who have examined the evidence of
the autposy with access to better quality photos and X-Rays, many of
which are not in the public domain.
I do NOT think they were "skilled body alterers", I think they did
what they could in the time they had. And someone has ben fooling you
into believing that the medical panels had better photos and X-rays than
we have. But the photographer noted that many sets of photos that he took
were missing from the sets later, and he was forced to sign off that they
were all there anyway. The X-ray person stated that many of the X-rays
that he took were no longer present as well in the archives.

As well, recently I discovered that the HSCA used a Dox DRAWING of the
BOH of JFK to prove there was a bullet hole there, yet the original photo
it was copied from had NO BULLET HOLE! When the HSCA starts faking
photos, we're in deep trouble.
Post by BT George
It truly is the devious and clever plotters, who in other contexts make
the Keystone Cops appear competent.
Check out the HSCA at:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm

Pages 103-104

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-06 03:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
So it doesn't matter at all to you that they keep moving around this
imaginary entrance wound in the back of the head? And you believe in the
ICE BULLET THEORY too?
Because you have no morals or no conscience?
BT George
2018-08-07 04:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
So it doesn't matter at all to you that they keep moving around this
imaginary entrance wound in the back of the head? And you believe in the
ICE BULLET THEORY too?
Because you have no morals or no conscience?
*They* didn't move the wound around; the following Panels did. And they
did so primarily on the basis of a photograph while overlooking signficant
evidence that the original location might have been correct. And of
course it bothers me, which is why I have posted about it a good bit.
However, it will never be fully resolved unless Kennedy's body is one day
exhumed and re-examined.

All mutterings about an Ice Bullet will be ignored, since you won't find
that recorded as the ultimate findings of the original autopsists or the
succeeding Panels.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 23:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
So it doesn't matter at all to you that they keep moving around this
imaginary entrance wound in the back of the head? And you believe in the
ICE BULLET THEORY too?
Because you have no morals or no conscience?
*They* didn't move the wound around; the following Panels did. And they
did so primarily on the basis of a photograph while overlooking signficant
evidence that the original location might have been correct. And of
course it bothers me, which is why I have posted about it a good bit.
However, it will never be fully resolved unless Kennedy's body is one day
exhumed and re-examined.
All mutterings about an Ice Bullet will be ignored, since you won't find
that recorded as the ultimate findings of the original autopsists or the
succeeding Panels.
Silly. I never said official finding. I said it was an earlier guess.
All is does is prove the incompetence of the autopsy doctors.
One you admit that fact we can move on to the bogus findings.
BTW, name me even one qualified autopsy doctor who ever mentioned ICE
BULLETS.
YOU WC defenders keep moving around the locations of the bullet wounds
to fit whatever theory is faahionable that day.
Do you break rank with all the other WC defenders and claim the entrance
wound really was down near the EOP? Can you diagram what YOU think the
path of that bullet would be? Of course not. You make up shit and you
can't back it up.
AGain, pay attention. We don't have to exhume the body to reexamine it.
Mark
2018-08-10 15:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it. Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR. Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound? It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Chris
Thanks. I'll take your assessment of their work as a contra-indicator of
its quality.
So it doesn't matter at all to you that they keep moving around this
imaginary entrance wound in the back of the head? And you believe in the
ICE BULLET THEORY too?
Because you have no morals or no conscience?
*They* didn't move the wound around; the following Panels did. And they
did so primarily on the basis of a photograph while overlooking signficant
evidence that the original location might have been correct. And of
course it bothers me, which is why I have posted about it a good bit.
However, it will never be fully resolved unless Kennedy's body is one day
exhumed and re-examined.
If that ever happens, and I'm not saying it won't, it will be after all
who knew him in life are gone. And he had a ton of nieces and nephews.
I'm pretty sure they will fight it, and I can't fault them.

Mark
k
bigdog
2018-08-03 04:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
Post by mainframetech
It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Yes, it would have given conspiracy hobbyists false impressions when they
have shown they are perfectly capable of creating false impressions on
their own.
mainframetech
2018-08-04 02:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by n***@gmail.com
I had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy tram that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
WRONG! Many in the case saw that wound. I've given you the list, so
you know it, so why are you pretending no one saw the proof?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Yes, it would have given conspiracy hobbyists false impressions when they
have shown they are perfectly capable of creating false impressions on
their own.
Nothing nice to say about anyone, except maybe an LN, eh?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-05 03:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy tram that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
WRONG! Many in the case saw that wound. I've given you the list, so
you know it, so why are you pretending no one saw the proof?
Here we go again. You've cited a lot of people who saw it elsewhere and to
you that's close enough.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Yes, it would have given conspiracy hobbyists false impressions when they
have shown they are perfectly capable of creating false impressions on
their own.
Nothing nice to say about anyone, except maybe an LN, eh?
Should I say nice things about foolishness?
mainframetech
2018-08-06 04:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy tram that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
WRONG! Many in the case saw that wound. I've given you the list, so
you know it, so why are you pretending no one saw the proof?
Here we go again. You've cited a lot of people who saw it elsewhere and to
you that's close enough.
Don't give me that crap! You've tried and failed at that picky
business of inventing a different location for some eyewitnesses. There
is no disagreement among them and the area I marked out covers all
sightings, including those in the list from the case, and those here that
saw the proof. And I'm getting awful tired of repeating all this over and
over because you constantly repeat it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Yes, it would have given conspiracy hobbyists false impressions when they
have shown they are perfectly capable of creating false impressions on
their own.
Nothing nice to say about anyone, except maybe an LN, eh?
Should I say nice things about foolishness?
Why not? Praising yourself is done by Trump, why not you too?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-07 04:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
What the hell did you mean when you wrote, "No one said there WAS a bullet
hole"?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy tram that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Why would I think they saw it in a different place just because they said
they saw it in a different place? You have made one admission here. Your
forehead/temple, a term you coined, covers so much area that you can claim
that no matter where the witnesses placed the wound, you can claim they
support you. Unfortunately for you, your placement of the bullet hole is
in a very specific area of the forehead/temple and none of the witnesses
support that location.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
WRONG! Many in the case saw that wound. I've given you the list, so
you know it, so why are you pretending no one saw the proof?
Here we go again. You've cited a lot of people who saw it elsewhere and to
you that's close enough.
Don't give me that crap! You've tried and failed at that picky
business of inventing a different location for some eyewitnesses. There
is no disagreement among them and the area I marked out covers all
sightings,
I guess that's true when you define forehead/temple so broadly. Your
specific placement of the bullet hole isn't so broad and none of the
witnesses support your specific placement.
Post by mainframetech
including those in the list from the case, and those here that
saw the proof. And I'm getting awful tired of repeating all this over and
over because you constantly repeat it.
If you're getting tired of it, quit claiming that witnesses who didn't
place the wound where you have support you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would start a whole concept of
a bullet arriving from the front which would completely ruin the carefully
set up 'lone nut' theory.
Yes, it would have given conspiracy hobbyists false impressions when they
have shown they are perfectly capable of creating false impressions on
their own.
Nothing nice to say about anyone, except maybe an LN, eh?
Should I say nice things about foolishness?
Why not? Praising yourself is done by Trump, why not you too?
More foolishness.
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
What the hell did you mean when you wrote, "No one said there WAS a bullet
hole"?
Seems pretty self explanatory. What's your problem now?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy team that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Why would I think they saw it in a different place just because they said
they saw it in a different place?
First of all, THEY didn't say they saw it elsewhere. Jenkins did, and
he obviously made a mistake, since he said the bullet hole was 5 mm in
diameter and the only wound of that proportion is within the
forehead/temple area, so he had to have meant that one.
Post by bigdog
You have made one admission here. Your
forehead/temple, a term you coined, covers so much area that you can claim
that no matter where the witnesses placed the wound, you can claim they
support you. Unfortunately for you, your placement of the bullet hole is
in a very specific area of the forehead/temple and none of the witnesses
support that location.
ALL descriptions fall within the forehead/temple area, but since it is
the only wound that was 5 mm in diameter, there's no doubt what all were
speaking of. Nit pick it all you want, you'll just waste your time and
mine in your repetitiveness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
WRONG! Many in the case saw that wound. I've given you the list, so
you know it, so why are you pretending no one saw the proof?
Here we go again. You've cited a lot of people who saw it elsewhere and to
you that's close enough.
Don't give me that crap! You've tried and failed at that picky
business of inventing a different location for some eyewitnesses. There
is no disagreement among them and the area I marked out covers all
sightings,
I guess that's true when you define forehead/temple so broadly. Your
specific placement of the bullet hole isn't so broad and none of the
witnesses support your specific placement.
They all fit within the area described. This is getting repetitive, so
I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
What the hell did you mean when you wrote, "No one said there WAS a bullet
hole"?
Seems pretty self explanatory. What's your problem now?
You keep contradicting yourself. First you said, "No one said there WAS a
bullet hole" and then turned around and said "It is an established fact
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.". So which is it?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy team that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Why would I think they saw it in a different place just because they said
they saw it in a different place?
First of all, THEY didn't say they saw it elsewhere. Jenkins did, and
he obviously made a mistake,
Oh, he "obviously" made a mistake because he said he saw it elsewhere. It
couldn't be that you are the one that is mistaken. And then there is
Dennis Daivd. He didn't point to your location either yet you continue to
use him to support your unsupportable claim. No witness placed it in the
specific location you have yet you continue to claim these people saw a
bullet hole where you think you do. Just because they saw a bullet hole in
the front right quadrant of JFK's head doesn't mean they saw one in the
specific location you have placed one.
Post by mainframetech
since he said the bullet hole was 5 mm in
diameter and the only wound of that proportion is within the
forehead/temple area, so he had to have meant that one.
You are the one claiming that hole in a very specific location in the
"forehead/temple" and you aren't a witness. Just because they saw a bullet
hole about 5mm doesn't mean they saw your bullet hole. They saw a real one
and you see an imaginary one. None of their placements support you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You have made one admission here. Your
forehead/temple, a term you coined, covers so much area that you can claim
that no matter where the witnesses placed the wound, you can claim they
support you. Unfortunately for you, your placement of the bullet hole is
in a very specific area of the forehead/temple and none of the witnesses
support that location.
ALL descriptions fall within the forehead/temple area,
BFD. You have defined your "forehead/temple" so broadly their placements
couldn't help but fall within it.
Post by mainframetech
but since it is
the only wound that was 5 mm in diameter, there's no doubt what all were
speaking of. Nit pick it all you want, you'll just waste your time and
mine in your repetitiveness.
Just because their description of its size matches what you think you see
it doesn't mean their location does. Completely illogical thinking and you
can't even see why that is illogical.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, if Humes had
put that wound in the list, then those reading the list would immediately
think what if that were a bullet wound?
If Humes had put that in the list, he would have been making things up.
WRONG! Many in the case saw that wound. I've given you the list, so
you know it, so why are you pretending no one saw the proof?
Here we go again. You've cited a lot of people who saw it elsewhere and to
you that's close enough.
Don't give me that crap! You've tried and failed at that picky
business of inventing a different location for some eyewitnesses. There
is no disagreement among them and the area I marked out covers all
sightings,
I guess that's true when you define forehead/temple so broadly. Your
specific placement of the bullet hole isn't so broad and none of the
witnesses support your specific placement.
They all fit within the area described. This is getting repetitive, so
I'm outa here.
Complete foolishness. The fact remains not a single witness placed a
bullet hole your specific location.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
What the hell did you mean when you wrote, "No one said there WAS a bullet
hole"?
Seems pretty self explanatory. What's your problem now?
You keep contradicting yourself. First you said, "No one said there WAS a
bullet hole" and then turned around and said "It is an established fact
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.". So which is it?
You really have to look more carefully and stop jumping in when you
think you've got something that will help you regain some ego. Give it
some thought first. There were 2 different situations, in the first case
I was making clear to you that I had said that SOME people saw a bullet
hole, and some didn't. In the other case, I saw the bullet hole and a
list of people from the case saw it too, and plus some people here. That
guaranteed that there was indeed a bullet hole in the SOD photo. Whether
some didn't see it or not. Simple!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy team that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Why would I think they saw it in a different place just because they said
they saw it in a different place?
First of all, THEY didn't say they saw it elsewhere. Jenkins did, and
he obviously made a mistake,
Oh, he "obviously" made a mistake because he said he saw it elsewhere. It
couldn't be that you are the one that is mistaken. And then there is
Dennis Daivd. He didn't point to your location either yet you continue to
use him to support your unsupportable claim. No witness placed it in the
specific location you have yet you continue to claim these people saw a
bullet hole where you think you do. Just because they saw a bullet hole in
the front right quadrant of JFK's head doesn't mean they saw one in the
specific location you have placed one.
I've ben over and over this time and again with you and you just
aren't able to take on the facts and understand them. It's a waste of my
time to continue trying to wipe behind your ears. This repetition is
silly. I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
What the hell did you mean when you wrote, "No one said there WAS a bullet
hole"?
Seems pretty self explanatory. What's your problem now?
You keep contradicting yourself. First you said, "No one said there WAS a
bullet hole" and then turned around and said "It is an established fact
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.". So which is it?
You really have to look more carefully and stop jumping in when you
think you've got something that will help you regain some ego. Give it
some thought first. There were 2 different situations, in the first case
I was making clear to you that I had said that SOME people saw a bullet
hole, and some didn't. In the other case, I saw the bullet hole and a
list of people from the case saw it too, and plus some people here. That
guaranteed that there was indeed a bullet hole in the SOD photo. Whether
some didn't see it or not. Simple!
So if some people thing they see a bullet hole and other people look at
the same photo and don't see a bullet hole, in your wacky world that
proves there was a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy team that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Why would I think they saw it in a different place just because they said
they saw it in a different place?
First of all, THEY didn't say they saw it elsewhere. Jenkins did, and
he obviously made a mistake,
Oh, he "obviously" made a mistake because he said he saw it elsewhere. It
couldn't be that you are the one that is mistaken. And then there is
Dennis Daivd. He didn't point to your location either yet you continue to
use him to support your unsupportable claim. No witness placed it in the
specific location you have yet you continue to claim these people saw a
bullet hole where you think you do. Just because they saw a bullet hole in
the front right quadrant of JFK's head doesn't mean they saw one in the
specific location you have placed one.
I've ben over and over this time and again with you and you just
aren't able to take on the facts and understand them. It's a waste of my
time to continue trying to wipe behind your ears. This repetition is
silly. I'm outa here.
Pretty much everything you have ever posted on this forum has been a waste
of time aside from the comic relief it provides. You make ridiculous
claims with no evidence to support them and present them as if they are
established facts.
mainframetech
2018-08-11 22:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Considering the serious errors they made in the Autopsy Report (AR) I
would have to disagree. For example, the wound in the right
forehead/temple area that appears to some to be a bullet hole, was not
listed in the Wound list, where it was necessary to put it.
That's because only people with very active imaginations see such a bullet
hole. Kind of like the people who think they see the face of Jesus on a
piece of toast.
WRONG! As usual you mumped in as if you were the guru here, and
fouled up again. No one said there WAS a bullet hole, only that some
people SAW a bullet hole. And it went on to speak of whether it was a
bullet hole OR NOT....try to follow along next time and not jump in with
foolish comments.
So are you at long last conceding that it is not an established fact that
there was a bullet hole in the forehead/temple, only that some people
think they see one?
Don't be ridiculous! It is an established fact that there is a bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, but my comment noted that there were
some people that SAW that, and some that didn't, like all the LNs, who
don't dare see a bullet hole there. It would crush them to admit such.
What the hell did you mean when you wrote, "No one said there WAS a bullet
hole"?
Seems pretty self explanatory. What's your problem now?
You keep contradicting yourself. First you said, "No one said there WAS a
bullet hole" and then turned around and said "It is an established fact
that there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.". So which is it?
You really have to look more carefully and stop jumping in when you
think you've got something that will help you regain some ego. Give it
some thought first. There were 2 different situations, in the first case
I was making clear to you that I had said that SOME people saw a bullet
hole, and some didn't. In the other case, I saw the bullet hole and a
list of people from the case saw it too, and plus some people here. That
guaranteed that there was indeed a bullet hole in the SOD photo. Whether
some didn't see it or not. Simple!
So if some people thing they see a bullet hole and other people look at
the same photo and don't see a bullet hole, in your wacky world that
proves there was a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it
was a bullet hole or not, it was a wound and it was present on the head,
and should have been in the wound list in the AR.
Just because you say there was a wound there does nothing to establish
that there was a wound there.
Try and realize that I was not alone in seeing the wound. And there
were those on the autopsy team that saw it too. Like Jenkins and Finck,
the pathologist, an expert in his field.
Why do you keep citing people who placed the wound elsewhere to support
your claim it was in the forehead/temple?
They are included in having seen the wound right where everyone else
saw it, and it won't do you a bit of good to try and pretend that some
folks saw it in a different place. The forehead/temple area covers all
the sightings of the bullet hole.
Why would I think they saw it in a different place just because they said
they saw it in a different place?
First of all, THEY didn't say they saw it elsewhere. Jenkins did, and
he obviously made a mistake,
Oh, he "obviously" made a mistake because he said he saw it elsewhere. It
couldn't be that you are the one that is mistaken. And then there is
Dennis Daivd. He didn't point to your location either yet you continue to
use him to support your unsupportable claim. No witness placed it in the
specific location you have yet you continue to claim these people saw a
bullet hole where you think you do. Just because they saw a bullet hole in
the front right quadrant of JFK's head doesn't mean they saw one in the
specific location you have placed one.
I've been over and over this time and again with you and you just
aren't able to take on the facts and understand them. It's a waste of my
time to continue trying to wipe behind your ears. This repetition is
silly. I'm outa here.
Pretty much everything you have ever posted on this forum has been a waste
of time aside from the comic relief it provides. You make ridiculous
claims with no evidence to support them and present them as if they are
established facts.
Sounds like the WCR or maybe the HSCA Final Report.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 23:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog