Discussion:
How do you reason with this?
Add Reply
bigdog
2018-06-14 00:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
wound in JFK's forehead wrote the following:

"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
mainframetech
2018-06-15 01:06:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.

Here's my statement again:

"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.

Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING! So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.

Chris
Bill Clarke
2018-06-16 05:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <1c53f0da-b8b9-4b92-8962-***@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
Post by mainframetech
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our=
=20
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance=
=20
=20
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=
=20
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=
=20
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=
=20
and the fleshy rim around it. "
=20
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In=20
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying th=
e=20
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hol=
e=20
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in=20
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves=
=20
in just two sentences.
Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=20
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=
=20
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=
=20
and the fleshy rim around it. "
First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING! So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.
Chris
I just knew Big Dog was talking about Marsh here. I'm shocked. But
recently Marsh post a reference that proved he was wrong as hell. He shot
himself in his own foot. It is to laugh.
mainframetech
2018-06-17 01:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
Post by mainframetech
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our=
=20
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance=
=20
=20
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=
=20
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=
=20
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=
=20
and the fleshy rim around it. "
=20
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In=20
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying th=
e=20
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hol=
e=20
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in=20
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves=
=20
in just two sentences.
Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=20
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=
=20
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=
=20
and the fleshy rim around it. "
First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING! So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.
Chris
I just knew Big Dog was talking about Marsh here. I'm shocked. But
recently Marsh post a reference that proved he was wrong as hell. He shot
himself in his own foot. It is to laugh.
Actually, bd was talking about me, and I didn't appreciate it, so I
responded. I've had to correct him so often that I think it has hurt his
ego and he feels he has to somehow try to 'get' me. Which will never
happen.

Chris

bigdog
2018-06-16 05:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!
So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.
It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.
Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.
I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.
Post by mainframetech
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.
This is what it comes down to. You NEED your imaginary bullet wound to be
both obvious and not obvious. First, you think by saying it is obvious
that no further explanation is necessary. But then you needed a reason for
the review panels to have missed it so you turn around and so it was not
obvious. To get around this dilemma you have created for yourself, you
claim the photo has to be enlarged in order to see the obvious bullet
wound. First of all, it is ludicrous to assume the review panels were
working with prints the size as one sees when the photo is accessed
online. I've seen photos of some of these photos being presented to the
HSCA and they are plenty large. In addition they are of much higher
quality than the copies that have been leaked to the public. Dr. Peter
Cummings who was granted access to the original photos has told us that.
On top of all that, I and I'm sure many others have enlarged that photo
and no bullet hole suddenly pops out. What you imagine to be a bullet hole
is nothing but a dark blob extending below the hairline. It is the same
shade as the hair and there is no margin delineating that blob from the
hair that it extends from. When you enlarge the photo, that blob remains
the same shade as the rest of the hair and no delineating margin appears.
This suggests that the blob is nothing more than a small tuft of hair
extending down below the hairline. In order to see a bullet hole there,
you need an active imagination and/or a desperate desire to believe there
is a bullet hole there.
mainframetech
2018-06-17 01:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!
So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.
You've gotten it wrong again! The problem is that when small the
bullet hole is easy to miss. When the photo is ENLARGED, the clear bullet
hole is easy to understand and see, for everyone but LNs who don't dare se
a bullet hole.

And to help the few who might work up the courage to look at the
bullet hole using the instructions, here is a photo used by Vincent DiMaio
as an example of this type of bullet wound. Go to the link below and look
for chapter 4 and find figure 4.16.

https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.
It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.
No, only if you read it that way, because I had told him the full
story many, many times, so didn't bother to repeat it all over again. He
has heard the full story yet decided to not mention that he knew there
were instructions between my first and second statement that made a
difference in whether the bullet hole was obvious or not.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.
I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.
WRONG! You had heard my explanation many, many times and you aren't
that stupid that you forgot that there were instructions between my 2
statements that made the difference between obvious and not obvious. Now
you're pretending you didn't know anything about it, but I've told it to
you too many times for you to have forgotten. It's in your nature to be a
wise guy and insult anyone that doesn't agree with you, which you have
always done with me. So you get it back from me, and that will continue
until you change your attitude in how you deal with people that don't
agree with you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.
This is what it comes down to. You NEED your imaginary bullet wound to be
both obvious and not obvious.
So now you're gong to do a Trump and try to talk your way out of it and
try to make it look like you had every reason to fake your complaint about
me to the forum in a special thread. You'll never learn how to get along
with people.
Post by bigdog
First, you think by saying it is obvious
that no further explanation is necessary.
Give it up. There's no talking your way out of what you did. You and
I have argued that point of the bullet hole so many times that you could
give it all back to me from memory. And you know damn well that my
instructions always were to ENLARGE the photo before looking for the
wound, which would make a difference in how obvious it was. Far too many
times for you to cover up with that phony excuse. You were frustrated and
had to take a shot at me so you could feel better, and you made a special
post with a title to do it. Note, it's not a new method for you. You've
done similar things before.
Post by bigdog
But then you needed a reason for
the review panels to have missed it so you turn around and so it was not
obvious. To get around this dilemma you have created for yourself, you
claim the photo has to be enlarged in order to see the obvious bullet
wound. First of all, it is ludicrous to assume the review panels were
working with prints the size as one sees when the photo is accessed
online. I've seen photos of some of these photos being presented to the
HSCA and they are plenty large. In addition they are of much higher
quality than the copies that have been leaked to the public. Dr. Peter
Cummings who was granted access to the original photos has told us that.
On top of all that, I and I'm sure many others have enlarged that photo
and no bullet hole suddenly pops out. What you imagine to be a bullet hole
is nothing but a dark blob extending below the hairline. It is the same
shade as the hair and there is no margin delineating that blob from the
hair that it extends from. When you enlarge the photo, that blob remains
the same shade as the rest of the hair and no delineating margin appears.
This suggests that the blob is nothing more than a small tuft of hair
extending down below the hairline. In order to see a bullet hole there,
you need an active imagination and/or a desperate desire to believe there
is a bullet hole there.
All your arguments are wasted when confronted by evidence of a
person's own eyes. And making the comparison with DiMaio's example shows
it up even more clearly. You took a shot at me, after we had discussed
that point over and over, and now you again try to cover your tracks with
the old argument. I'm not responding to it this time. you have heard
everything I have had to say on the subject and you either believe my
evidence, or you don't, which is your choice. It should be easy for you,
since you're the only person in the world that says you see nothing out of
normal in the photo.

Chris
Spence
2018-06-15 01:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
He also believes a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11 too. Go figure.
mainframetech
2018-06-16 05:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spence
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
He also believes a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11 too. Go figure.
Possibly. And you've been unable to prove otherwise.

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-15 01:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.

Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.

Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.

Why would he do that?

I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?
Jason Burke
2018-06-16 05:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?
Too much LDS in the sixties is my guess.
mainframetech
2018-06-16 05:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?
Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).

If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-17 01:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.
We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?
Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands".
Why do you ALWAYS use the term obvious when you are claiming something for
which there is no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise.
They weren't looking at a photo. They were looking at the body. How do you
enlarge a body. Did you even think about this before you typed it? I know.
Stupid question.
Post by mainframetech
For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR.
Another in your long list of unsupportable assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
The one member of the team who you actually quoted stated the bullet hole
was in the temporal bone. Finck along with the other two pathologists
signed a report that said the hole was in the parietal bone which is above
and adjacent to the temporal bone. Neither of those bones is part of the
forehead so neither of these two people support your bogus claim.
Post by mainframetech
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
The bullet hole was mentioned in the AR and it was placed in the parietal
bone. Sorry if that doesn't square with your fantasy.
Loading...