Discussion:
Paul O'Connors HSCA interview
(too old to reply)
GKnoll
2017-07-15 01:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Here is a link to his HSCA interview.

Reading this, I got the opinion that Mr. O'Connoer had a chip on his
shoulder. For what I do not know. But he was asked to leave the autopsy
for some reason.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md64/html/Image0.htm
mainframetech
2017-07-15 19:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to his HSCA interview.
Reading this, I got the opinion that Mr. O'Connoer had a chip on his
shoulder. For what I do not know. But he was asked to leave the autopsy
for some reason.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md64/html/Image0.htm
I'll show you what O'Connor had to say, and he certainly was NOT asked
to leave the autopsy. He was able to describe what took place clearly,
which means to me that the HSCA covered up the bombshell testimony he had
to give. If they let his words get into the record, the whole cover up
would have been blown. Here's what he had to say from the autopsy:

"Paul O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only
went in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any
further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit
and found out that the bullet entered the body, went through the
intercostal muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet
went in through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched
downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs,
both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually
went down and stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we
didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later.
That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and
found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come
out the other side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

O'Connor saw the same thing everyone on the autopsy team saw. That the
back wound bullet had stopped at the pleura (lung covering) and did NOT
leave the body of JFK to go out the throat wound and then to cause all the
wounds on Connally. The SBT was killed by O'Connor's testimony, and they
couldn't let that happen. So they said he was asked to leave. The fact
that no reason was given for that is suggestive of cover up.

Not only the SBT died from O'Connor's testimony, but the Autopsy
Report written out by Humes is also put into doubt, since it says
something different than what O'Connor saw. That explains the serious
effort to steal the body from Dallas so that they could take it to a
military hospital where they could order the pathologists to report what
they were told, rather than what they saw.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-07-15 19:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to his HSCA interview.
Reading this, I got the opinion that Mr. O'Connoer had a chip on his
shoulder. For what I do not know. But he was asked to leave the autopsy
for some reason.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md64/html/Image0.htm
I'll show you what O'Connor had to say, and he certainly was NOT asked
to leave the autopsy. He was able to describe what took place clearly,
which means to me that the HSCA covered up the bombshell testimony he had
to give. If they let his words get into the record, the whole cover up
"Paul O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only
went in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any
further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit
and found out that the bullet entered the body, went through the
intercostal muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet
went in through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched
downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs,
both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually
went down and stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we
didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later.
That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and
found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come
out the other side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
O'Connor saw the same thing everyone on the autopsy team saw. That the
back wound bullet had stopped at the pleura (lung covering) and did NOT
leave the body of JFK to go out the throat wound and then to cause all the
wounds on Connally. The SBT was killed by O'Connor's testimony, and they
couldn't let that happen. So they said he was asked to leave. The fact
that no reason was given for that is suggestive of cover up.
The fact that a wound cannot be probed does *not* mean the bullet did
not transit.

The body is not a big block of Styrofoam. When you move it, the
relative positions of skin, muscles, membranes and so on change.

From HSCA Volume VII:

<quote on>

(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.

<end quote>

Then there is the fact that the tip of the right lung was bruised.

But I'm guessing you will say that's a lie, right?

Everything you find inconvenient is a lie, right?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-07-16 03:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to his HSCA interview.
Reading this, I got the opinion that Mr. O'Connoer had a chip on his
shoulder. For what I do not know. But he was asked to leave the autopsy
for some reason.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md64/html/Image0.htm
I'll show you what O'Connor had to say, and he certainly was NOT asked
to leave the autopsy. He was able to describe what took place clearly,
which means to me that the HSCA covered up the bombshell testimony he had
to give. If they let his words get into the record, the whole cover up
"Paul O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only
went in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any
further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit
and found out that the bullet entered the body, went through the
intercostal muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet
went in through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched
downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs,
both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually
went down and stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we
didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later.
That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and
found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come
out the other side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
O'Connor saw the same thing everyone on the autopsy team saw. That the
back wound bullet had stopped at the pleura (lung covering) and did NOT
leave the body of JFK to go out the throat wound and then to cause all the
wounds on Connally. The SBT was killed by O'Connor's testimony, and they
couldn't let that happen. So they said he was asked to leave. The fact
that no reason was given for that is suggestive of cover up.
The fact that a wound cannot be probed does *not* mean the bullet did
not transit.
Of course! I take it you didn't rad his full statement from your
guess there.
Post by John McAdams
The body is not a big block of Styrofoam. When you move it, the
relative positions of skin, muscles, membranes and so on change.
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
Then there is the fact that the tip of the right lung was bruised.
But I'm guessing you will say that's a lie, right?
Everything you find inconvenient is a lie, right?
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
muscles. It said:

"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."

Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf


5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point! A bullet won't go around soft tissue,
it will make a hole or a tear and push its way through.

Now let's hear from an interview of James Jenkins another Technologist
who was also on the autopsy team. He was looking into the chest cavity as
the prosectors were trying to probe from the back side:

"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."

Jenkins was looking into the chest cavity AFTER organs had been
removed. He saw them probing against the pleura with nothing in the way
and they could not go through the pleura. There was no path. It's normal
for the prosectors to dissect the path of a bullet through the body but
they did not do that in this case and simply said it was hard to do.
Actually, it was impossible because they WAS NO PATH. Jenkins
corroborates O'Connor's statement that there was no path for the bullet.
And there fore no SBT.

It's simple to read only the first few lines of O'Connor's statement and
get the wrong idea. Reading the whole way through gives a more rounded
impression that there was NO PATH through the body of JFK for the back
wound bullet. That bullet may have been removed by Humes and Boswell in
the 42 minutes they had for their clandestine work on the body, which was
witnessed, or the sworn statement of Jerrol Custer may have been true:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet. The term was used with medical people and is a
bastardization of the French accent saying centimeter.

Chris
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-07-16 03:18:40 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Jul 2017 23:04:58 -0400, mainframetech <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.

Did you even bother to read this?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.

You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.

All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.

A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.

A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.

This is not rocket science.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-07-16 22:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
AR when Humes said:

"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.

The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.

A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
of Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician, who said:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.


Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-17 11:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-17 21:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
Real pathologists don't document a wound by using a probe. They dissect
it and photograph it. But having the autopsy at Bethesada meant that the
military ordered the doctors to NOT dissect the wound.
mainframetech
2017-07-18 00:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.


You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?

There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond. And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura. Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.

The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.

Got it yet? I know you have difficulty in picturing things.

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-18 15:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
Post by mainframetech
Got it yet? I know you have difficulty in picturing things.
Oh, the irony.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-18 23:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy???s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I???d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That???s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That???s about,
I???d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
Why are you so wimpy? Why do let kooks like this get away with saying
silly things like that. He barely know about a bullet causing a hole. He
doesn't know anything about the wound path and the overpressure of a
bullet passing through the body. He doesn't know anything about the
abrasion collar around an entrance wound when the bullet makes a hole.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
Post by mainframetech
Got it yet? I know you have difficulty in picturing things.
Oh, the irony.
mainframetech
2017-07-19 18:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!

There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there. However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity. Now think
carefully about this. He was looking form inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
As shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body? He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Got it yet? I know you have difficulty in picturing things.
Oh, the irony.
You feel some of it coming on again?

Chris
Jonny Mayer
2017-07-20 02:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.

What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
Jason Burke
2017-07-20 20:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
Many in the CT crowd are of the belief that if you say some total and
utter crap enough times it becomes the truth.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-21 11:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
Many in the CT crowd are of the belief that if you say some total and
utter crap enough times it becomes the truth.
Mo, that's Trump. How's his wall coming?
mainframetech
2017-07-20 23:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
I repeat only ads needed. Sometimes it's not seen by the
non-believers.

Doubtful that he as hit in the back and throat at the same time. The
odds are small. But there were shooters from the front. The kill shot
hit him in the right forehead over the eye. Look at the 'stare-of-death'
photo below and ENLARGE it and look just under the hair on the right
forehead and tell me what you see there:

Loading Image...

Chris
Jason Burke
2017-07-21 14:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
I repeat only ads needed. Sometimes it's not seen by the
non-believers.
Doubtful that he as hit in the back and throat at the same time. The
odds are small. But there were shooters from the front. The kill shot
hit him in the right forehead over the eye. Look at the 'stare-of-death'
photo below and ENLARGE it and look just under the hair on the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Chris
Not *this* bullshit again.

Chris has repeated it, what, 10^2 times now? So it must be true. Well, no.
bigdog
2017-07-21 14:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
I repeat only ads needed. Sometimes it's not seen by the
non-believers.
Doubtful that he as hit in the back and throat at the same time. The
odds are small. But there were shooters from the front. The kill shot
hit him in the right forehead over the eye. Look at the 'stare-of-death'
photo below and ENLARGE it and look just under the hair on the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
This rivals Ralph's belief that the Altgens photo shows Oswald in the
doorway for sheer silliness.
mainframetech
2017-07-22 11:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
I repeat only ads needed. Sometimes it's not seen by the
non-believers.
Doubtful that he as hit in the back and throat at the same time. The
odds are small. But there were shooters from the front. The kill shot
hit him in the right forehead over the eye. Look at the 'stare-of-death'
photo below and ENLARGE it and look just under the hair on the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
This rivals Ralph's belief that the Altgens photo shows Oswald in the
doorway for sheer silliness.
The difference being that many have seen the bullet hole in the photo
and not just nothing.

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-22 21:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
I repeat only ads needed. Sometimes it's not seen by the
non-believers.
Doubtful that he as hit in the back and throat at the same time. The
odds are small. But there were shooters from the front. The kill shot
hit him in the right forehead over the eye. Look at the 'stare-of-death'
photo below and ENLARGE it and look just under the hair on the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
This rivals Ralph's belief that the Altgens photo shows Oswald in the
doorway for sheer silliness.
The difference being that many have seen the bullet hole in the photo
and not just nothing.
Ralph has numerous people in his OIC too. There are many 9/11 truthers,
moon landing deniers, and flat earthers. Silliness loves company.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-23 23:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
I repeat only ads needed. Sometimes it's not seen by the
non-believers.
Doubtful that he as hit in the back and throat at the same time. The
odds are small. But there were shooters from the front. The kill shot
hit him in the right forehead over the eye. Look at the 'stare-of-death'
photo below and ENLARGE it and look just under the hair on the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
This rivals Ralph's belief that the Altgens photo shows Oswald in the
doorway for sheer silliness.
The difference being that many have seen the bullet hole in the photo
and not just nothing.
Ralph has numerous people in his OIC too. There are many 9/11 truthers,
moon landing deniers, and flat earthers. Silliness loves company.
And you think Nixon and Trump and Putin are innocent.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-21 00:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Mayer
Chris he couldn't have been hit in the back and the throat and the throat
at the same time.
What do you hope to achieve by repetition?
Interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that. How is it even possible to
coordinate shots from 2 different directions to hit the same target at
exactly the same time?
You have 2 major problems.
1. Unknown muzzle velocities for each shot.
2. Variable distances for each shot.
The best they could do was the Seal Team with 3 shooters each hitting
their three different targets within 180 ms of each other.
How about Mythbusters? Could they do what you allege?
bigdog
2017-07-20 14:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking form inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
As shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-21 00:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Which is why they did the autopsy at a military hospital where the
military could control it. If Rose had done the autopsy there would have
been a nuclear war and all life on this planet would be wiped out.
Don't think of it as a cover-up. Think of it as your patriotic duty to
save the country.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking form inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
Something like that. Have you ever heard of rigor mortis?
Also their probe would have stopped at T-1 which is were the bullet hit
and was deflected.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
As shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
Anything is better than The Three Stooges.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
Exactly, so ignore The Three Stooges. You really didn't fall for the old
Ice Bullet trick, did you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
Oh yeah, like a 6.8 mm bullet causing a 6.5 mm hole in the skull.
Morons.
mainframetech
2017-07-21 11:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue. NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past. There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point. He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists. And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill. THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.

THINK THINK, THINK!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably. The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
they did.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing? If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.

You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team. Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-22 00:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue. NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past. There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point. He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists. And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill. THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably. The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
they did.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing? If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team. Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
Chris
Was the janitor part of the "team"? You have a bad habit of misusing
words in English.
bigdog
2017-07-22 12:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
Post by mainframetech
THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
Post by mainframetech
The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
Post by mainframetech
If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
Post by mainframetech
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team.
They had the report of the competent people on the autopsy team. They
didn't need a couple techies in their early 20s to tell them what had
happened.
Post by mainframetech
Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
No you didn't get your conclusions from the prosectors because they
rendered an opinion the polar opposite of yours. You got your opinions
from the recollections of a couple 20-something technicians and ignored
what the prosectors wrote in their report. Damn are you desperate to cling
to your sill beliefs.
mainframetech
2017-07-23 13:25:53 UTC
Permalink
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 John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed. NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. That had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.

You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.

Here's the statement again:

"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."

You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG. Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.

The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung. That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later. However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw. A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid. Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting. If you're going to try to get away with that tired old gimmick
of quoting from the AR, don't bother. You'd be wrong anyway.


Jenkins was NOT a corpsman in a work/study program. He was a trained
Technologist with many autopsies of experience. But it doesn't matter if
he was a bum off the street. The problem is simply one of knowing that a
probe had no way to travel through the pleura, which had no holes or tears
in it. The same goes for O'Connor who corroborated the PROOF they ALL
saw, including the "doctors" (prosectors).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! THERE WERE NO ORGANS IN THE CHEST CAVITY
WHEN JENKINS SAW THAT THE PROBE WAS TRYING TO RUB ON THE PLEURA AND THERE
WAS NO PATH THROUGH IT!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Stop pretending to be so stupid! A probe cannot go through a pleura if
there is no hole or tear in it. There were NO ORGANS in the chest cavity
at the time that Jenkins made his statement. It was clear to him that
there was no place for the prove to go through, and there was nothing
there in the way of his sight.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
It was stated that ALL the prosectors and the autopsy team saw the
proof. Why are you trying to pretend that is untrue?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
How did they see a lot more with the photos missing? If they had seen
what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
than they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
You're being stupid again. I do NOT claim that 'they' all lied.
Only the prosectors that signed off on the AR, AFTER they saw the proof in
the body. The others were honest, and told us what was there to see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
I'm clear on what happened from the people that made statements of
what they saw. The bullet could NOT pass through the strap muscles, since
it would have to go through the pleura and lung first, and it didn't do
that. So you're WRONG again.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Are you going to pretend that you're not repeating your beliefs from
the WCR?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
WHOA! You're repeating your crap hundreds o times, and it causes me to
correct you over an over every time you do it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
If the photos were there and showed what has been described by
statements from the autopsy team, then the panels would have decided
differently. Why must I repeat this to you so often? It's so simple.
and I've shown the photographers saying that they were forced to sign off
even though there were missing photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
At last you figured it out! What a trial to get that through to you.
The autopsy team saw that the bullet stopped at the pleura and lung. If
you want to include the AR, there some proof there too, but not as much
because Humes had orders to lie there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
WRONG! Prove that the photos of the pleura and lung exist for the
panels to see. Or give up your ridiculous story.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team.
They had the report of the competent people on the autopsy team. They
didn't need a couple techies in their early 20s to tell them what had
happened.
So you're saying that there were incompetent people on the autopsy team?
You think you're qualified to decide who's competent medically? I think
not. give up your ego attempts.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
No you didn't get your conclusions from the prosectors because they
rendered an opinion the polar opposite of yours. You got your opinions
from the recollections of a couple 20-something technicians and ignored
what the prosectors wrote in their report. Damn are you desperate to cling
to your sill beliefs.
WRONG! The prosectors rendered a conclusion early on in the autopsy,
and were proved right later. That they were ordered to lie in the AR has
no bearing on what they said while DURING the autopsy, since there was NO
meeting or agreement to change what they saw.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-23 22:44:16 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Do you believe everything that Humes said? Ice BUllet?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
When will you get a book? SHOW ME.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed. NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. That had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
So now when it's convenient you admit that Humes was ordered to lie.
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG. Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
No, it would hit the vertebra.
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung. That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later. However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
Wrong.
Post by mainframetech
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw. A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
Close up? WFT are you taking about?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid. Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
The Three Stooges did not have the technical skills to recognize a
bullet hole in the throat or a bullet hole in the skull.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting. If you're going to try to get away with that tired old gimmick
of quoting from the AR, don't bother. You'd be wrong anyway.
Jenkins was NOT a corpsman in a work/study program. He was a trained
Technologist with many autopsies of experience. But it doesn't matter if
he was a bum off the street. The problem is simply one of knowing that a
probe had no way to travel through the pleura, which had no holes or tears
in it. The same goes for O'Connor who corroborated the PROOF they ALL
saw, including the "doctors" (prosectors).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! THERE WERE NO ORGANS IN THE CHEST CAVITY
WHEN JENKINS SAW THAT THE PROBE WAS TRYING TO RUB ON THE PLEURA AND THERE
WAS NO PATH THROUGH IT!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Stop pretending to be so stupid! A probe cannot go through a pleura if
there is no hole or tear in it. There were NO ORGANS in the chest cavity
at the time that Jenkins made his statement. It was clear to him that
there was no place for the prove to go through, and there was nothing
there in the way of his sight.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
It was stated that ALL the prosectors and the autopsy team saw the
proof. Why are you trying to pretend that is untrue?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
How did they see a lot more with the photos missing? If they had seen
what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
than they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
You're being stupid again. I do NOT claim that 'they' all lied.
Only the prosectors that signed off on the AR, AFTER they saw the proof in
the body. The others were honest, and told us what was there to see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
I'm clear on what happened from the people that made statements of
what they saw. The bullet could NOT pass through the strap muscles, since
it would have to go through the pleura and lung first, and it didn't do
that. So you're WRONG again.
You are beyond help.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Are you going to pretend that you're not repeating your beliefs from
the WCR?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
WHOA! You're repeating your crap hundreds o times, and it causes me to
correct you over an over every time you do it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
If the photos were there and showed what has been described by
statements from the autopsy team, then the panels would have decided
differently. Why must I repeat this to you so often? It's so simple.
and I've shown the photographers saying that they were forced to sign off
even though there were missing photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
At last you figured it out! What a trial to get that through to you.
The autopsy team saw that the bullet stopped at the pleura and lung. If
you want to include the AR, there some proof there too, but not as much
because Humes had orders to lie there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
WRONG! Prove that the photos of the pleura and lung exist for the
panels to see. Or give up your ridiculous story.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team.
They had the report of the competent people on the autopsy team. They
didn't need a couple techies in their early 20s to tell them what had
happened.
So you're saying that there were incompetent people on the autopsy team?
You think you're qualified to decide who's competent medically? I think
not. give up your ego attempts.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
No you didn't get your conclusions from the prosectors because they
rendered an opinion the polar opposite of yours. You got your opinions
from the recollections of a couple 20-something technicians and ignored
what the prosectors wrote in their report. Damn are you desperate to cling
to your sill beliefs.
WRONG! The prosectors rendered a conclusion early on in the autopsy,
Yeah, like the ice bullet. Are you defending that?
Post by mainframetech
and were proved right later. That they were ordered to lie in the AR has
no bearing on what they said while DURING the autopsy, since there was NO
meeting or agreement to change what they saw.
Chris
bigdog
2017-07-24 14:29:58 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. That had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm

Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.

Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.

Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.

You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Post by mainframetech
If you're going to try to get away with that tired old gimmick
of quoting from the AR, don't bother. You'd be wrong anyway.
Oh, so now it is a gimmick to look to qualified people to render expert
opinions regarding a highly technical and specialized field.
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins was NOT a corpsman in a work/study program. He was a trained
Technologist with many autopsies of experience.
Explain how those two are incompatible. Jenkins was a Navy corpsman. He
was in a work/study program. Part of that program called for him to
perform tasks to assist the pathologists in conducting autopsies.
Post by mainframetech
But it doesn't matter if
he was a bum off the street.
Not to you. If a bum off the street told a story you wanted to believe,
you would.
Post by mainframetech
The problem is simply one of knowing that a
probe had no way to travel through the pleura,
Why would it. The bullet didn't travel through the pleura. The bullet
traveled over the pleura.
Post by mainframetech
which had no holes or tears
in it. The same goes for O'Connor who corroborated the PROOF they ALL
saw, including the "doctors" (prosectors).
So you have a 21 year old techie corroborating a 20 year old techie. I
guess that's a good enough reason to dismiss the unanimous opinions of all
those highly esteemed medical examiners. That includes Dr. Earl Rose who
you believe should have conducted the original autopsy. He concurred with
the opinions stated in the autopsy report.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! THERE WERE NO ORGANS IN THE CHEST CAVITY
WHEN JENKINS SAW THAT THE PROBE WAS TRYING TO RUB ON THE PLEURA AND THERE
WAS NO PATH THROUGH IT!
You still can't understand the bullet went through the muscles that were
above all those organs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Stop pretending to be so stupid! A probe cannot go through a pleura if
there is no hole or tear in it.
Of course the probe couldn't go through the pleura. The bullet didn't go
through the pleura. The bullet passed above the pleura.
Post by mainframetech
There were NO ORGANS in the chest cavity
at the time that Jenkins made his statement. It was clear to him that
there was no place for the prove to go through, and there was nothing
there in the way of his sight.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles, not any of the organs and not
through the chest cavity.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
It was stated that ALL the prosectors and the autopsy team saw the
proof. Why are you trying to pretend that is untrue?
That wasn't stated by the prosectors. That was stated by a 20 year old
techie. You keep trying to let the 20 year old techie tell us what the
prosectors saw instead of letting the prosectors tell us what they saw.
Pretty silly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
How did they see a lot more with the photos missing?
Because there were lots and lots of photos that weren't missing (if any
actually were). They saw more than enough to convince them the bullet
passed through the torso and exited from the throat.
Post by mainframetech
If they had seen
what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
They decided the same thing the autopsy team decided, that the bullet
exited from the throat. The techies don't speak for the autopsy team. The
pathologists do. They told us what they saw in the report they signed and
in testimony given before various venues.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
than they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
You're being stupid again. I do NOT claim that 'they' all lied.
Only the prosectors that signed off on the AR, AFTER they saw the proof in
the body. The others were honest, and told us what was there to see.
The review panels made conclusions based on the photos and x-rays they
saw. You seem to be disputing that they saw that material.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
I'm clear on what happened from the people that made statements of
what they saw.
The least qualified people available.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet could NOT pass through the strap muscles, since
it would have to go through the pleura and lung first, and it didn't do
that. So you're WRONG again.
Is that what they taught you at medical school? You've already told us
there is not empty space in the human body. So tell us what tissue is
directly above the lung and pleura.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Are you going to pretend that you're not repeating your beliefs from
the WCR?
The WC backed up their findings with rock solid evidence. You, not so much.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
WHOA! You're repeating your crap hundreds o times, and it causes me to
correct you over an over every time you do it.
I'm just pointing out your silliness which you seem determined to continue
to repeat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
If the photos were there and showed what has been described by
statements from the autopsy team, then the panels would have decided
differently.
So that is what you believe. If the review panels had actually seen the
photos and x-rays they would have agreed with statements made by the young
techies and disputed the findings of the pathologists on the team. Amazing
what you will convince yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
Why must I repeat this to you so often?
Damn good question. I wish there was an equally good answer.
Post by mainframetech
It's so simple.
and I've shown the photographers saying that they were forced to sign off
even though there were missing photos.
If there were photos missing, they weren't all missing. Did any of the
photographers say that all of the photos were missing. Did any of them say
most of them were missing. The review panels based their findings on the
photos and x-rays that were NOT missing and those materials convinced them
JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit JFK in the
back exited from his throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
At last you figured it out! What a trial to get that through to you.
The autopsy team saw that the bullet stopped at the pleura and lung.
No they didn't. A 20 year old techie thought that's what he saw because he
was not trained in forensic medicine. He didn't understand what the
medical evidence was indicating.
Post by mainframetech
If
you want to include the AR, there some proof there too, but not as much
because Humes had orders to lie there.
Your imaginary orders are evidence of nothing. You base your belief that
such orders were given because the opinions of the pathologists were at
odds with the opinions of the techies and for some silly reason you think
the techies opinions should carry more weight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
WRONG! Prove that the photos of the pleura and lung exist for the
panels to see. Or give up your ridiculous story.
All the review panels based their opinions on what they saw in the photos
and x-rays. Now you want to suggest that they never actually saw such
materials which would mean they lied too. The original pathologists lied
and all the review panels lied. Everybody lied but the three techies in
their early 20s.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team.
They had the report of the competent people on the autopsy team. They
didn't need a couple techies in their early 20s to tell them what had
happened.
So you're saying that there were incompetent people on the autopsy team?
They certainly weren't competent to render judgements regarding the
medical evidence. Their level of competence was to perform tasks to assist
the people who were competent to make such judgements.
Post by mainframetech
You think you're qualified to decide who's competent medically? I think
not. give up your ego attempts.
You are the one deciding that techies in their early 20s were competent to
give expert opinions regarding the medical evidence. Good luck finding a
legal authority who agrees with you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
No you didn't get your conclusions from the prosectors because they
rendered an opinion the polar opposite of yours. You got your opinions
from the recollections of a couple 20-something technicians and ignored
what the prosectors wrote in their report. Damn are you desperate to cling
to your sill beliefs.
WRONG! The prosectors rendered a conclusion early on in the autopsy,
and were proved right later.
No they didn't. Conclusions come a the end of a process, not at the
beginning.
Post by mainframetech
That they were ordered to lie in the AR has
no bearing on what they said while DURING the autopsy, since there was NO
meeting or agreement to change what they saw.
They were ordered to lie because their opinions aren't compatible with
what you want to believe so you had to dream up a reason for that and you
came up with imaginary orders for which their isn't a scintilla of
evidence.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-24 23:16:55 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy???s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I???d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That???s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That???s about,
I???d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. That had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
YES, please. He doesn't even know where the pleura is.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Post by mainframetech
If you're going to try to get away with that tired old gimmick
of quoting from the AR, don't bother. You'd be wrong anyway.
Oh, so now it is a gimmick to look to qualified people to render expert
opinions regarding a highly technical and specialized field.
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins was NOT a corpsman in a work/study program. He was a trained
Technologist with many autopsies of experience.
Explain how those two are incompatible. Jenkins was a Navy corpsman. He
was in a work/study program. Part of that program called for him to
perform tasks to assist the pathologists in conducting autopsies.
Post by mainframetech
But it doesn't matter if
he was a bum off the street.
Not to you. If a bum off the street told a story you wanted to believe,
you would.
Post by mainframetech
The problem is simply one of knowing that a
probe had no way to travel through the pleura,
Why would it. The bullet didn't travel through the pleura. The bullet
traveled over the pleura.
Post by mainframetech
which had no holes or tears
in it. The same goes for O'Connor who corroborated the PROOF they ALL
saw, including the "doctors" (prosectors).
So you have a 21 year old techie corroborating a 20 year old techie. I
guess that's a good enough reason to dismiss the unanimous opinions of all
those highly esteemed medical examiners. That includes Dr. Earl Rose who
you believe should have conducted the original autopsy. He concurred with
the opinions stated in the autopsy report.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! THERE WERE NO ORGANS IN THE CHEST CAVITY
WHEN JENKINS SAW THAT THE PROBE WAS TRYING TO RUB ON THE PLEURA AND THERE
WAS NO PATH THROUGH IT!
You still can't understand the bullet went through the muscles that were
above all those organs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Stop pretending to be so stupid! A probe cannot go through a pleura if
there is no hole or tear in it.
Of course the probe couldn't go through the pleura. The bullet didn't go
through the pleura. The bullet passed above the pleura.
Post by mainframetech
There were NO ORGANS in the chest cavity
at the time that Jenkins made his statement. It was clear to him that
there was no place for the prove to go through, and there was nothing
there in the way of his sight.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles, not any of the organs and not
through the chest cavity.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
It was stated that ALL the prosectors and the autopsy team saw the
proof. Why are you trying to pretend that is untrue?
That wasn't stated by the prosectors. That was stated by a 20 year old
techie. You keep trying to let the 20 year old techie tell us what the
prosectors saw instead of letting the prosectors tell us what they saw.
Pretty silly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
How did they see a lot more with the photos missing?
Because there were lots and lots of photos that weren't missing (if any
actually were). They saw more than enough to convince them the bullet
passed through the torso and exited from the throat.
Post by mainframetech
If they had seen
what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
They decided the same thing the autopsy team decided, that the bullet
exited from the throat. The techies don't speak for the autopsy team. The
pathologists do. They told us what they saw in the report they signed and
in testimony given before various venues.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
than they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
You're being stupid again. I do NOT claim that 'they' all lied.
Only the prosectors that signed off on the AR, AFTER they saw the proof in
the body. The others were honest, and told us what was there to see.
The review panels made conclusions based on the photos and x-rays they
saw. You seem to be disputing that they saw that material.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
I'm clear on what happened from the people that made statements of
what they saw.
The least qualified people available.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet could NOT pass through the strap muscles, since
it would have to go through the pleura and lung first, and it didn't do
that. So you're WRONG again.
Is that what they taught you at medical school? You've already told us
there is not empty space in the human body. So tell us what tissue is
directly above the lung and pleura.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Are you going to pretend that you're not repeating your beliefs from
the WCR?
The WC backed up their findings with rock solid evidence. You, not so much.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
WHOA! You're repeating your crap hundreds o times, and it causes me to
correct you over an over every time you do it.
I'm just pointing out your silliness which you seem determined to continue
to repeat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
If the photos were there and showed what has been described by
statements from the autopsy team, then the panels would have decided
differently.
So that is what you believe. If the review panels had actually seen the
photos and x-rays they would have agreed with statements made by the young
techies and disputed the findings of the pathologists on the team. Amazing
what you will convince yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
Why must I repeat this to you so often?
Damn good question. I wish there was an equally good answer.
Post by mainframetech
It's so simple.
and I've shown the photographers saying that they were forced to sign off
even though there were missing photos.
If there were photos missing, they weren't all missing. Did any of the
photographers say that all of the photos were missing. Did any of them say
most of them were missing. The review panels based their findings on the
photos and x-rays that were NOT missing and those materials convinced them
JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit JFK in the
back exited from his throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
At last you figured it out! What a trial to get that through to you.
The autopsy team saw that the bullet stopped at the pleura and lung.
No they didn't. A 20 year old techie thought that's what he saw because he
was not trained in forensic medicine. He didn't understand what the
medical evidence was indicating.
Post by mainframetech
If
you want to include the AR, there some proof there too, but not as much
because Humes had orders to lie there.
Your imaginary orders are evidence of nothing. You base your belief that
such orders were given because the opinions of the pathologists were at
odds with the opinions of the techies and for some silly reason you think
the techies opinions should carry more weight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
WRONG! Prove that the photos of the pleura and lung exist for the
panels to see. Or give up your ridiculous story.
All the review panels based their opinions on what they saw in the photos
and x-rays. Now you want to suggest that they never actually saw such
materials which would mean they lied too. The original pathologists lied
and all the review panels lied. Everybody lied but the three techies in
their early 20s.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team.
They had the report of the competent people on the autopsy team. They
didn't need a couple techies in their early 20s to tell them what had
happened.
So you're saying that there were incompetent people on the autopsy team?
They certainly weren't competent to render judgements regarding the
medical evidence. Their level of competence was to perform tasks to assist
the people who were competent to make such judgements.
Post by mainframetech
You think you're qualified to decide who's competent medically? I think
not. give up your ego attempts.
You are the one deciding that techies in their early 20s were competent to
give expert opinions regarding the medical evidence. Good luck finding a
legal authority who agrees with you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Only the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
No you didn't get your conclusions from the prosectors because they
rendered an opinion the polar opposite of yours. You got your opinions
from the recollections of a couple 20-something technicians and ignored
what the prosectors wrote in their report. Damn are you desperate to cling
to your sill beliefs.
WRONG! The prosectors rendered a conclusion early on in the autopsy,
and were proved right later.
No they didn't. Conclusions come a the end of a process, not at the
beginning.
Post by mainframetech
That they were ordered to lie in the AR has
no bearing on what they said while DURING the autopsy, since there was NO
meeting or agreement to change what they saw.
They were ordered to lie because their opinions aren't compatible with
what you want to believe so you had to dream up a reason for that and you
came up with imaginary orders for which their isn't a scintilla of
evidence.
mainframetech
2017-07-25 19:22:02 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide. I
said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly. And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was. This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.

It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung. If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob= lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.

You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that! For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out. They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.

Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
Here's a cite:

"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."

From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook


Also:

"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required. No medical expertise needed. There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you're going to try to get away with that tired old gimmick
of quoting from the AR, don't bother. You'd be wrong anyway.
Oh, so now it is a gimmick to look to qualified people to render expert
opinions regarding a highly technical and specialized field.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins was NOT a corpsman in a work/study program. He was a trained
Technologist with many autopsies of experience.
Explain how those two are incompatible. Jenkins was a Navy corpsman. He
was in a work/study program. Part of that program called for him to
perform tasks to assist the pathologists in conducting autopsies.
You'll have to show that. I'm not aware that he was still in a program
of work/study.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it doesn't matter if
he was a bum off the street.
Not to you. If a bum off the street told a story you wanted to believe,
you would.
Post by mainframetech
The problem is simply one of knowing that a
probe had no way to travel through the pleura,
Why would it. The bullet didn't travel through the pleura. The bullet
traveled over the pleura.
False. It could not do that, as has been explained to you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which had no holes or tears
in it. The same goes for O'Connor who corroborated the PROOF they ALL
saw, including the "doctors" (prosectors).
So you have a 21 year old techie corroborating a 20 year old techie. I
guess that's a good enough reason to dismiss the unanimous opinions of all
those highly esteemed medical examiners. That includes Dr. Earl Rose who
you believe should have conducted the original autopsy. He concurred with
the opinions stated in the autopsy report.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! THERE WERE NO ORGANS IN THE CHEST CAVITY
WHEN JENKINS SAW THAT THE PROBE WAS TRYING TO RUB ON THE PLEURA AND THERE
WAS NO PATH THROUGH IT!
You still can't understand the bullet went through the muscles that were
above all those organs.
IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PLEURA AND LUNG TO GET TO THE STRAP MUSCLES.
ARE YOU DENSE?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Stop pretending to be so stupid! A probe cannot go through a pleura if
there is no hole or tear in it.
Of course the probe couldn't go through the pleura. The bullet didn't go
through the pleura. The bullet passed above the pleura.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were NO ORGANS in the chest cavity
at the time that Jenkins made his statement. It was clear to him that
there was no place for the prove to go through, and there was nothing
there in the way of his sight.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles, not any of the organs and not
through the chest cavity.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
It was stated that ALL the prosectors and the autopsy team saw the
proof. Why are you trying to pretend that is untrue?
That wasn't stated by the prosectors. That was stated by a 20 year old
techie. You keep trying to let the 20 year old techie tell us what the
prosectors saw instead of letting the prosectors tell us what they saw.
Pretty silly.
Anyone can be a witness to what occurred in a given situation. They
don't have to be experts in any particular field. Anyone can do it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
How did they see a lot more with the photos missing?
Because there were lots and lots of photos that weren't missing (if any
actually were). They saw more than enough to convince them the bullet
passed through the torso and exited from the throat.
Post by mainframetech
If they had seen
what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
They decided the same thing the autopsy team decided, that the bullet
exited from the throat. The techies don't speak for the autopsy team. The
pathologists do. They told us what they saw in the report they signed and
in testimony given before various venues.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
than they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
You're being stupid again. I do NOT claim that 'they' all lied.
Only the prosectors that signed off on the AR, AFTER they saw the proof in
the body. The others were honest, and told us what was there to see.
The review panels made conclusions based on the photos and x-rays they
saw. You seem to be disputing that they saw that material.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
I'm clear on what happened from the people that made statements of
what they saw.
The least qualified people available.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet could NOT pass through the strap muscles, since
it would have to go through the pleura and lung first, and it didn't do
that. So you're WRONG again.
Is that what they taught you at medical school? You've already told us
there is not empty space in the human body. So tell us what tissue is
directly above the lung and pleura.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Are you going to pretend that you're not repeating your beliefs from
the WCR?
The WC backed up their findings with rock solid evidence. You, not so much.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
WHOA! You're repeating your crap hundreds o times, and it causes me to
correct you over an over every time you do it.
I'm just pointing out your silliness which you seem determined to continue
to repeat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
If the photos were there and showed what has been described by
statements from the autopsy team, then the panels would have decided
differently.
So that is what you believe. If the review panels had actually seen the
photos and x-rays they would have agreed with statements made by the young
techies and disputed the findings of the pathologists on the team. Amazing
what you will convince yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
Why must I repeat this to you so often?
Damn good question. I wish there was an equally good answer.
Post by mainframetech
It's so simple.
and I've shown the photographers saying that they were forced to sign off
even though there were missing photos.
If there were photos missing, they weren't all missing. Did any of the
photographers say that all of the photos were missing. Did any of them say
most of them were missing. The review panels based their findings on the
photos and x-rays that were NOT missing and those materials convinced them
JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit JFK in the
back exited from his throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
At last you figured it out! What a trial to get that through to you.
The autopsy team saw that the bullet stopped at the pleura and lung.
No they didn't. A 20 year old techie thought that's what he saw because he
was not trained in forensic medicine. He didn't understand what the
medical evidence was indicating.
Post by mainframetech
If
you want to include the AR, there some proof there too, but not as much
because Humes had orders to lie there.
Your imaginary orders are evidence of nothing. You base your belief that
such orders were given because the opinions of the pathologists were at
odds with the opinions of the techies and for some silly reason you think
the techies opinions should carry more weight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
WRONG! Prove that the photos o the PROOF in the body exist. Since the panels came to the wrong conclusion, they had to have quoted the AR, and not the photos which no longer existed, as per the photographer.
Chris
bigdog
2017-07-26 01:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
forensic medical examiner. Here is the definition of clinical pathology:

"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."

Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
mainframetech
2017-07-27 03:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue. Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
And there are 2 tissues that repeat the evidence, pleura and lung. As
well, Jenkins saw the bruise in the MIDDLE LOBE of the lung, so there's
some debate between the reports. The AR mentions the tip of the lung,
which makes no sense with the bruises being 2 inches in diameter. And
your comment that:

"It doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it."

...is foolish. If it didn't strike the tissue there wouldn't be a
bruise at all! Would it wave a magic wand as it passes through all that
empty space over the pleura? Time to study up on your biology.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
How could they? They never saw the pleura in any photos, and they only
had the AR to go with. It would be dumb to expect experts to understand a
situation without being able to see it. You seem unable to understand
that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
No medical examiner disagrees either. They didn't se the proof, which
the autopsy team saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullet's
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
WRONG! It's not MY analysis, it's from the autopsy team. But it
certainly is a simple physical problem. Something is in the way of a
bullet and stopped it and got bruised in the process. Simple stuff for
the average IQ to understand.

And to repeat myself because of your comment, NO Medical Expert
disagreed with what I've said. None. They couldn't because they didn't
see the proof.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
WRONG! Simple physics and you try to pretend it's some complicated
medical situation. Give it up. You've lost the point long ago.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Not possible, since they didn't see the proof. Remember that the
photographer said there were missing sets of photos. If an expert had
seen the proof, he would have concluded something different than they did,
so they didn't se the proof.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
Oh bullshit! Anyone that got through 8th grade would know the lung and
could easily interpret the term middle lobe or upper lobe. Don't even
begin to pretend that Jenkins, who was a trained Technologist, doesn't
know the middle lobe of the lung from the upper. What crap you try to
purvey!


The rest of all this is repetitive and I'm skipping it to the end.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Thank you!

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-29 18:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Post by mainframetech
And there are 2 tissues that repeat the evidence, pleura and lung. As
well, Jenkins saw the bruise in the MIDDLE LOBE of the lung,
Jenkins was the only one who remembered it as being in the middle lobe.
The qualified people all said it was the upper tip. I'll go with them.
Post by mainframetech
so there's some debate between the reports.
Naturally you side with the least qualified opinion available.
Post by mainframetech
The AR mentions the tip of the lung,
which makes no sense with the bruises being 2 inches in diameter. And
"It doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it."
...is foolish. If it didn't strike the tissue there wouldn't be a
bruise at all! Would it wave a magic wand as it passes through all that
empty space over the pleura? Time to study up on your biology.
If you've ever seen slow motion footage of a bullet passing through
ballistic gel would realize it creates a cavity in it's wake several
inches wide. That disrupts the surrounding tissue.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
How could they? They never saw the pleura in any photos, and they only
had the AR to go with.
How would you know what they saw in the photos? Oh that's right. They
reached a different conclusion than you did so the only way that could
have happened would be if they didn't see the photos.
Post by mainframetech
It would be dumb to expect experts to understand a
situation without being able to see it.
But we should accept your judgement over theirs even though you have seen
a lot less and are relying on the opinions of unqualified people.
Post by mainframetech
You seem unable to understand that.
I hope I never start understanding you. It might be a sign I need to move
into assisted living.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
No medical examiner disagrees either. They didn't se the proof, which
the autopsy team saw.
Every medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence including the
original three pathologists disagree with you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullet's
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
WRONG! It's not MY analysis, it's from the autopsy team.
No it isn't. The technicians do not speak for the autopsy team because
they aren't qualified to do that. The pathologists speak for the autopsy
team and they all signed the report that disagrees with your conclusions.
You choose to reject their words and accept the word of the unqualified
technicians. Why? Because that is the story you WANT to believe.
Post by mainframetech
But it
certainly is a simple physical problem. Something is in the way of a
bullet and stopped it and got bruised in the process. Simple stuff for
the average IQ to understand.
It takes more than an average IQ to understand forensic medicine. It takes
years of training and experience, something you have neither of.
Post by mainframetech
And to repeat myself because of your comment, NO Medical Expert
disagreed with what I've said. None. They couldn't because they didn't
see the proof.
You can repeat that until the cows come home and it is still bullshit.
They ALL disagree with you and they all saw the photos and the x-rays of
the autopsy which left no doubt in their minds that the original findings
were correct.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
WRONG! Simple physics and you try to pretend it's some complicated
medical situation. Give it up. You've lost the point long ago.
Right. Who needs training and experience in forensic medicine. Anybody
could do it. I'll bet even the janitor could have figured it out. I don't
know why but this is still funny every time you repeat this nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Not possible, since they didn't see the proof.
You said early they had the AR to go on and the AR stated that the lung
and pleura were bruised so they knew that and still concluded the bullet
had exited.
Post by mainframetech
Remember that the
photographer said there were missing sets of photos. If an expert had
seen the proof, he would have concluded something different than they did,
so they didn't se the proof.
You've already stepped in it. You stated the review panels had the AR
which told them the lung and pleura were bruised and all those qualified
medical examiners knew that wasn't proof a bullet had stopped at that
point. They concluded the bullet had gone beyond and exited the throat
knowing full well about the bruised pleura. A shame they didn't have you
around to explain to them that a bruised pleura was proof a bullet stopped
there. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
Oh bullshit! Anyone that got through 8th grade would know the lung and
could easily interpret the term middle lobe or upper lobe.
So why did the autopsy team conclude something different from the techie?
Why would you accept what the techie said over the unanimous opinion of
the three pathologists?
Post by mainframetech
Don't even
begin to pretend that Jenkins, who was a trained Technologist, doesn't
know the middle lobe of the lung from the upper. What crap you try to
purvey!
Jenkins was not trained or qualified to make such judgements. But you go
with him and reject the people who were trained and qualified.
Post by mainframetech
The rest of all this is repetitive and I'm skipping it to the end.
A wise move on your part.
mainframetech
2017-07-30 12:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed. Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there are 2 tissues that repeat the evidence, pleura and lung. As
well, Jenkins saw the bruise in the MIDDLE LOBE of the lung,
Jenkins was the only one who remembered it as being in the middle lobe.
The qualified people all said it was the upper tip. I'll go with them.
WRONG! People? Only one that I know of, and that was Humes when
ordered to write the AR the way he did. The others didn't say that, they
were simply ordered to sign off on what Humes wrote. Let's not invent
evidence from your wild imagination.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so there's some debate between the reports.
Naturally you side with the least qualified opinion available.
WRONG! It's not a matter of qualifications when talking about the top
or middle lobe of the lung. That's something the least trained person at
any autopsy would know. Even you. And since there is proof that Humes
wrote the AR as per orders, that document is under suspicion, and so less
solid as evidence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The AR mentions the tip of the lung,
which makes no sense with the bruises being 2 inches in diameter. And
"It doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it."
...is foolish. If it didn't strike the tissue there wouldn't be a
bruise at all! Would it wave a magic wand as it passes through all that
empty space over the pleura? Time to study up on your biology.
If you've ever seen slow motion footage of a bullet passing through
ballistic gel would realize it creates a cavity in it's wake several
inches wide. That disrupts the surrounding tissue.
So does the actual touching of the gel from the head of the bullet.
Think it through. But the case in point is where the bullet did NOT pass
through the pleura or the lung. It was stopped.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
How could they? They never saw the pleura in any photos, and they only
had the AR to go with.
How would you know what they saw in the photos? Oh that's right. They
reached a different conclusion than you did so the only way that could
have happened would be if they didn't see the photos.
WRONG! I didn't have to reach a conclusion, it was done for me by
experienced personnel at Bethesda. However, the panels reached the exact
conclusion that was in the AR, even with all it's faults, they didn't
notice them, they simply said it was right. That means that they didn't
see the proof in the body (we know that's true) or they would have said
something very different to match the autopsy personnel that saw the proof
and didn't have any orders to lie.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be dumb to expect experts to understand a
situation without being able to see it.
But we should accept your judgement over theirs even though you have seen
a lot less and are relying on the opinions of unqualified people.
WRONG! I made no judgment. I have reported what I was told by the
words and experiences of the autopsy personnel that had no orders to lie.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You seem unable to understand that.
I hope I never start understanding you. It might be a sign I need to move
into assisted living.
Oh! I thought you were already there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
No medical examiner disagrees either. They didn't see the proof, which
the autopsy team saw.
Every medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence including the
original three pathologists disagree with you.
No, they agreed with the AR. They didn't disagree with me because
they had no opportunity to hear and see what I have to offer them which I
got from some of the autopsy team.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullet's
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
WRONG! It's not MY analysis, it's from the autopsy team.
No it isn't. The technicians do not speak for the autopsy team because
they aren't qualified to do that.
WHOA! YOU have NO QUALIFICATIONS to decide on the qualifications of
anyone on the autopsy team. Whether the Technologists with all their
experience had the ability to use simple physics and apply it to what they
saw in the body, which the panels did NOT see, is not for YOU to
determine.
Post by bigdog
The pathologists speak for the autopsy
team and they all signed the report that disagrees with your conclusions.
You choose to reject their words and accept the word of the unqualified
technicians. Why? Because that is the story you WANT to believe.
The pathologists don't speak for anyone after the autopsy, Humes does,
and he wrote up the AR. The other prosectors were ordered to sign off on
it. That doesn't mean that others present can't speak to what they saw in
the body.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it
certainly is a simple physical problem. Something is in the way of a
bullet and stopped it and got bruised in the process. Simple stuff for
the average IQ to understand.
It takes more than an average IQ to understand forensic medicine. It takes
years of training and experience, something you have neither of.
Don't give me that crap. The issue we're discussing does not require
some high level forensic expert. we're talking simpler physics of a bullet
striking tissue on the body, and some people seeing the result and
agreeing.

This is a repetitive conversation, mainly from your end. I'm done with
it.

Chris
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And to repeat myself because of your comment, NO Medical Expert
disagreed with what I've said. None. They couldn't because they didn't
see the proof.
You can repeat that until the cows come home and it is still bullshit.
They ALL disagree with you and they all saw the photos and the x-rays of
the autopsy which left no doubt in their minds that the original findings
were correct.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
WRONG! Simple physics and you try to pretend it's some complicated
medical situation. Give it up. You've lost the point long ago.
Right. Who needs training and experience in forensic medicine. Anybody
could do it. I'll bet even the janitor could have figured it out. I don't
know why but this is still funny every time you repeat this nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Not possible, since they didn't see the proof.
You said early they had the AR to go on and the AR stated that the lung
and pleura were bruised so they knew that and still concluded the bullet
had exited.
Post by mainframetech
Remember that the
photographer said there were missing sets of photos. If an expert had
seen the proof, he would have concluded something different than they did,
so they didn't se the proof.
You've already stepped in it. You stated the review panels had the AR
which told them the lung and pleura were bruised and all those qualified
medical examiners knew that wasn't proof a bullet had stopped at that
point. They concluded the bullet had gone beyond and exited the throat
knowing full well about the bruised pleura. A shame they didn't have you
around to explain to them that a bruised pleura was proof a bullet stopped
there. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
Oh bullshit! Anyone that got through 8th grade would know the lung and
could easily interpret the term middle lobe or upper lobe.
So why did the autopsy team conclude something different from the techie?
Why would you accept what the techie said over the unanimous opinion of
the three pathologists?
Post by mainframetech
Don't even
begin to pretend that Jenkins, who was a trained Technologist, doesn't
know the middle lobe of the lung from the upper. What crap you try to
purvey!
Jenkins was not trained or qualified to make such judgements. But you go
with him and reject the people who were trained and qualified.
Post by mainframetech
The rest of all this is repetitive and I'm skipping it to the end.
A wise move on your part.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-31 01:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed. Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
No, silly. The "experts" said a 6.8 mm bullet caused a 6.5mm hole in the
skull.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there are 2 tissues that repeat the evidence, pleura and lung. As
well, Jenkins saw the bruise in the MIDDLE LOBE of the lung,
Jenkins was the only one who remembered it as being in the middle lobe.
The qualified people all said it was the upper tip. I'll go with them.
WRONG! People? Only one that I know of, and that was Humes when
ordered to write the AR the way he did. The others didn't say that, they
were simply ordered to sign off on what Humes wrote. Let's not invent
evidence from your wild imagination.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so there's some debate between the reports.
Naturally you side with the least qualified opinion available.
WRONG! It's not a matter of qualifications when talking about the top
or middle lobe of the lung. That's something the least trained person at
any autopsy would know. Even you. And since there is proof that Humes
wrote the AR as per orders, that document is under suspicion, and so less
solid as evidence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The AR mentions the tip of the lung,
which makes no sense with the bruises being 2 inches in diameter. And
"It doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it."
...is foolish. If it didn't strike the tissue there wouldn't be a
bruise at all! Would it wave a magic wand as it passes through all that
empty space over the pleura? Time to study up on your biology.
If you've ever seen slow motion footage of a bullet passing through
ballistic gel would realize it creates a cavity in it's wake several
inches wide. That disrupts the surrounding tissue.
So does the actual touching of the gel from the head of the bullet.
Think it through. But the case in point is where the bullet did NOT pass
through the pleura or the lung. It was stopped.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
How could they? They never saw the pleura in any photos, and they only
had the AR to go with.
How would you know what they saw in the photos? Oh that's right. They
reached a different conclusion than you did so the only way that could
have happened would be if they didn't see the photos.
WRONG! I didn't have to reach a conclusion, it was done for me by
experienced personnel at Bethesda. However, the panels reached the exact
conclusion that was in the AR, even with all it's faults, they didn't
notice them, they simply said it was right. That means that they didn't
see the proof in the body (we know that's true) or they would have said
something very different to match the autopsy personnel that saw the proof
and didn't have any orders to lie.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be dumb to expect experts to understand a
situation without being able to see it.
But we should accept your judgement over theirs even though you have seen
a lot less and are relying on the opinions of unqualified people.
WRONG! I made no judgment. I have reported what I was told by the
words and experiences of the autopsy personnel that had no orders to lie.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You seem unable to understand that.
I hope I never start understanding you. It might be a sign I need to move
into assisted living.
Oh! I thought you were already there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
No medical examiner disagrees either. They didn't see the proof, which
the autopsy team saw.
Every medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence including the
original three pathologists disagree with you.
No, they agreed with the AR. They didn't disagree with me because
they had no opportunity to hear and see what I have to offer them which I
got from some of the autopsy team.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullet's
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
WRONG! It's not MY analysis, it's from the autopsy team.
No it isn't. The technicians do not speak for the autopsy team because
they aren't qualified to do that.
WHOA! YOU have NO QUALIFICATIONS to decide on the qualifications of
anyone on the autopsy team. Whether the Technologists with all their
experience had the ability to use simple physics and apply it to what they
saw in the body, which the panels did NOT see, is not for YOU to
determine.
Post by bigdog
The pathologists speak for the autopsy
team and they all signed the report that disagrees with your conclusions.
You choose to reject their words and accept the word of the unqualified
technicians. Why? Because that is the story you WANT to believe.
The pathologists don't speak for anyone after the autopsy, Humes does,
and he wrote up the AR. The other prosectors were ordered to sign off on
it. That doesn't mean that others present can't speak to what they saw in
the body.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it
certainly is a simple physical problem. Something is in the way of a
bullet and stopped it and got bruised in the process. Simple stuff for
the average IQ to understand.
It takes more than an average IQ to understand forensic medicine. It takes
years of training and experience, something you have neither of.
Don't give me that crap. The issue we're discussing does not require
some high level forensic expert. we're talking simpler physics of a bullet
striking tissue on the body, and some people seeing the result and
agreeing.
This is a repetitive conversation, mainly from your end. I'm done with
it.
Chris
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And to repeat myself because of your comment, NO Medical Expert
disagreed with what I've said. None. They couldn't because they didn't
see the proof.
You can repeat that until the cows come home and it is still bullshit.
They ALL disagree with you and they all saw the photos and the x-rays of
the autopsy which left no doubt in their minds that the original findings
were correct.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
WRONG! Simple physics and you try to pretend it's some complicated
medical situation. Give it up. You've lost the point long ago.
Right. Who needs training and experience in forensic medicine. Anybody
could do it. I'll bet even the janitor could have figured it out. I don't
know why but this is still funny every time you repeat this nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Not possible, since they didn't see the proof.
You said early they had the AR to go on and the AR stated that the lung
and pleura were bruised so they knew that and still concluded the bullet
had exited.
Post by mainframetech
Remember that the
photographer said there were missing sets of photos. If an expert had
seen the proof, he would have concluded something different than they did,
so they didn't se the proof.
You've already stepped in it. You stated the review panels had the AR
which told them the lung and pleura were bruised and all those qualified
medical examiners knew that wasn't proof a bullet had stopped at that
point. They concluded the bullet had gone beyond and exited the throat
knowing full well about the bruised pleura. A shame they didn't have you
around to explain to them that a bruised pleura was proof a bullet stopped
there. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
Oh bullshit! Anyone that got through 8th grade would know the lung and
could easily interpret the term middle lobe or upper lobe.
So why did the autopsy team conclude something different from the techie?
Why would you accept what the techie said over the unanimous opinion of
the three pathologists?
Post by mainframetech
Don't even
begin to pretend that Jenkins, who was a trained Technologist, doesn't
know the middle lobe of the lung from the upper. What crap you try to
purvey!
Jenkins was not trained or qualified to make such judgements. But you go
with him and reject the people who were trained and qualified.
Post by mainframetech
The rest of all this is repetitive and I'm skipping it to the end.
A wise move on your part.
bigdog
2017-07-31 15:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.

I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.

You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there are 2 tissues that repeat the evidence, pleura and lung. As
well, Jenkins saw the bruise in the MIDDLE LOBE of the lung,
Jenkins was the only one who remembered it as being in the middle lobe.
The qualified people all said it was the upper tip. I'll go with them.
WRONG! People? Only one that I know of, and that was Humes when
ordered to write the AR the way he did.
That's the only explanation you WANT to consider. There are others
available. One is that over the years Jenkins simply didn't remember that
detail correctly. Another is that he formed and incorrect impression from
the start. It the choices are the pathologists contemporaneous report was
wrong or the recollections of a techie who was 20 years old at the time
was wrong, I'm betting on the latter. But since you're a conspiracy
hobbyist and very bad at weighing evidence, you find the former more
compelling.
Post by mainframetech
The others didn't say that, they
were simply ordered to sign off on what Humes wrote. Let's not invent
evidence from your wild imagination.
You have given no evidence they were ordered to lie in their report other
than many years later the 20 year old technician gave a different version.
You would make a much stronger argument if you said the AR report is
evidence the techie's memories were wrong. But that doesn't fit with what
you want to believe so you refuse to consider that probability.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so there's some debate between the reports.
Naturally you side with the least qualified opinion available.
WRONG! It's not a matter of qualifications when talking about the top
or middle lobe of the lung. That's something the least trained person at
any autopsy would know. Even you. And since there is proof that Humes
wrote the AR as per orders, that document is under suspicion, and so less
solid as evidence.
There is proof Humes wrote the report. There is no proof he was ordered to
lie in it. That is entirely your invention. His report doesn't square with
your beliefs so to make your beliefs seem plausible you dreamed up the
excuse that he was ordered to lie. It didn't work. Your beliefs don't seem
the least bit plausible to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The AR mentions the tip of the lung,
which makes no sense with the bruises being 2 inches in diameter. And
"It doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it."
...is foolish. If it didn't strike the tissue there wouldn't be a
bruise at all! Would it wave a magic wand as it passes through all that
empty space over the pleura? Time to study up on your biology.
If you've ever seen slow motion footage of a bullet passing through
ballistic gel would realize it creates a cavity in it's wake several
inches wide. That disrupts the surrounding tissue.
So does the actual touching of the gel from the head of the bullet.
Think it through. But the case in point is where the bullet did NOT pass
through the pleura or the lung. It was stopped.
It did neither. It passed over the top of the lung and pleura and close enough to bruise them. A bruise is nothing more than internal hemorrhaging. It doesn't require a direct strike to cause that.

Here is a medical dictionary definition of contusion:

contusion
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.
Related to contusion: Brain contusion
contusion [kon-too´zhun]

injury to tissues with skin discoloration and without breakage of skin;
called also bruise. Blood from the broken vessels accumulates in
surrounding tissues, producing pain, swelling, and tenderness, and the
discoloration is the result of blood seepage just under the skin. Most
heal without special treatment, but cold compresses may reduce bleeding if
applied immediately after the injury, and thus may reduce swelling,
discoloration, and pain.

Note it talks about bleeding in SURROUNDING TISSUES. It does not require a
direct strike. Strangely you continue to be hung up on that point.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
How could they? They never saw the pleura in any photos, and they only
had the AR to go with.
How would you know what they saw in the photos? Oh that's right. They
reached a different conclusion than you did so the only way that could
have happened would be if they didn't see the photos.
WRONG! I didn't have to reach a conclusion, it was done for me by
experienced personnel at Bethesda.
Cut the crap. It's no more complicated than this. The pathologists stated their findings in their contemporaneous report. The "experienced personnel" you speak of were techies in their early 20s who gave their impressions decades later. For some strange reason, you find the latter to be more compelling. You find it more likely their version is correct and the pathologists were wrong. Why would you do something so silly?
Post by mainframetech
However, the panels reached the exact
conclusion that was in the AR, even with all it's faults, they didn't
notice them, they simply said it was right.
And now you are forced to claim the review panels ALL got it wrong simply
because the techies said something else. This seems to be a chronic
problem with conspiracy hobbyists. They are really, really bad at weighing
evidence. Given a choice between believing the techies were wrong or that
both the original pathologists and all the review panels got it wrong,
they side with the techies. Most people would laugh at that but no your
hard core conspiracy hobbyist. Whatever they are forced to accept in order
to believe Oswald was innocent, they will accept without giving it a
second thought. They probably didn't give it much of a first thought
either.
Post by mainframetech
That means that they didn't
see the proof in the body (we know that's true) or they would have said
something very different to match the autopsy personnel that saw the proof
and didn't have any orders to lie.
So you continue to believe both the original pathologists and every last
one of the medical examiners on the various review panels got it wrong
based on the word of a couple techies in their early 20s. Truly amazing
stuff.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be dumb to expect experts to understand a
situation without being able to see it.
But we should accept your judgement over theirs even though you have seen
a lot less and are relying on the opinions of unqualified people.
WRONG! I made no judgment. I have reported what I was told by the
words and experiences of the autopsy personnel that had no orders to lie.
And you ignored the word of the most qualified personnel at the autopsy
solely because you don't want to believe what they said. You assume that
the reason the pathologists findings don't concur with the techies is
because the pathologists were ordered to lie. You can't comprehend that it
could have been the techies who were wrong.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You seem unable to understand that.
I hope I never start understanding you. It might be a sign I need to move
into assisted living.
Oh! I thought you were already there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
No medical examiner disagrees either. They didn't see the proof, which
the autopsy team saw.
Every medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence including the
original three pathologists disagree with you.
No, they agreed with the AR. They didn't disagree with me because
they had no opportunity to hear and see what I have to offer them which I
got from some of the autopsy team.
As if what you have to offer would sway them one bit. That's comical.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullet's
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
WRONG! It's not MY analysis, it's from the autopsy team.
No it isn't. The technicians do not speak for the autopsy team because
they aren't qualified to do that.
WHOA! YOU have NO QUALIFICATIONS to decide on the qualifications of
anyone on the autopsy team.
If you want believe the techies were more qualified than the pathologists
to render medico-legal opinions regarding the forensic evidence, that is
your choice. Just don't expect any sensible person to share that opinion.
Post by mainframetech
Whether the Technologists with all their
experience had the ability to use simple physics and apply it to what they
saw in the body, which the panels did NOT see, is not for YOU to
determine.
Amazing how you try to pump up the validity of what the techies remembered
when it is disputed by every medical examiner who has seen the evidence.
Not one agrees with them or with you. But the hell with expert opinions.
You've never put much stock in them because they ALWAYS conflict with what
you would rather believe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The pathologists speak for the autopsy
team and they all signed the report that disagrees with your conclusions.
You choose to reject their words and accept the word of the unqualified
technicians. Why? Because that is the story you WANT to believe.
The pathologists don't speak for anyone after the autopsy, Humes does,
and he wrote up the AR. The other prosectors were ordered to sign off on
it. That doesn't mean that others present can't speak to what they saw in
the body.
You continue to claim they were ordered to sign the report without ever
having offered a shred of evidence that was the case. You refuse to
consider that the reason they signed the report was because they agreed
with what the report stated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it
certainly is a simple physical problem. Something is in the way of a
bullet and stopped it and got bruised in the process. Simple stuff for
the average IQ to understand.
It takes more than an average IQ to understand forensic medicine. It takes
years of training and experience, something you have neither of.
Don't give me that crap. The issue we're discussing does not require
some high level forensic expert.
Your problem is that you actually believe that statement.
Post by mainframetech
we're talking simpler physics of a bullet
striking tissue on the body, and some people seeing the result and
agreeing.
This is a repetitive conversation, mainly from your end. I'm done with
it.
You should have quit a long time ago. You would have saved yourself much
embarrassment.
mainframetech
2017-08-01 15:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out. But it's a simple problem that anyone can
answer if they were given the parameters, other than you. And yet we have
2 Technologists that agree with each other corroborating the facts. And
statements that the other prosectors saw the proof and Humes then went and
lied in the AR...had to be under orders.
Post by bigdog
I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN? NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS SAW THE PROOF, AND
THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DECENT CONCLUSION. Stop putting out false
information.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
WRONG! Please supply a statement from a Medical Examiner that a 2
inch bruise was made by the bullet in the pleura and lung. Otherwise,
they didn't see it and couldn't possibly make a reasonable conclusion from
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.
Depends on the strike and the bruise left. Amazing that you've tried to
fake your way past your grazing experience. A missile must strike a
tissue to lave a bruise, and if the missile is a bullet, it won't just
bounce off and go on its merry way. It will tear out a piece of meat from
the person it grazes. It's not a simple ball.
Post by bigdog
You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
WRONG! ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE LOST THE POINT. NO EXAMINER SAW THE PROOF
OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT.



The rest here is just more repeating, so I'm outa here.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-02 02:50:33 UTC
Permalink
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
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out. But it's a simple problem that anyone can
answer if they were given the parameters, other than you. And yet we have
2 Technologists that agree with each other corroborating the facts. And
No, we don't. We only have you misrepresenting testimony.
Post by mainframetech
statements that the other prosectors saw the proof and Humes then went and
lied in the AR...had to be under orders.
Yeah, he lied and it was under orders. That does not mean that you are
smart enough to figure out what he lied about.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN? NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS SAW THE PROOF, AND
THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DECENT CONCLUSION. Stop putting out false
information.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
WRONG! Please supply a statement from a Medical Examiner that a 2
inch bruise was made by the bullet in the pleura and lung. Otherwise,
they didn't see it and couldn't possibly make a reasonable conclusion from
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.
Depends on the strike and the bruise left. Amazing that you've tried to
fake your way past your grazing experience. A missile must strike a
tissue to lave a bruise, and if the missile is a bullet, it won't just
bounce off and go on its merry way. It will tear out a piece of meat from
the person it grazes. It's not a simple ball.
Post by bigdog
You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
WRONG! ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE LOST THE POINT. NO EXAMINER SAW THE PROOF
OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT.
Wrong. The autopsy doctors saw the proof and then they lied.
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is just more repeating, so I'm outa here.
Quick, cry and run away. Like a Harris.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-02 20:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
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
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out. But it's a simple problem that anyone can
answer if they were given the parameters, other than you. And yet we have
2 Technologists that agree with each other corroborating the facts. And
No, we don't. We only have you misrepresenting testimony.
Post by mainframetech
statements that the other prosectors saw the proof and Humes then went and
lied in the AR...had to be under orders.
Yeah, he lied and it was under orders. That does not mean that you are
smart enough to figure out what he lied about.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN? NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS SAW THE PROOF, AND
THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DECENT CONCLUSION. Stop putting out false
information.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
WRONG! Please supply a statement from a Medical Examiner that a 2
inch bruise was made by the bullet in the pleura and lung. Otherwise,
they didn't see it and couldn't possibly make a reasonable conclusion from
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.
Depends on the strike and the bruise left. Amazing that you've tried to
fake your way past your grazing experience. A missile must strike a
tissue to lave a bruise, and if the missile is a bullet, it won't just
bounce off and go on its merry way. It will tear out a piece of meat from
the person it grazes. It's not a simple ball.
Post by bigdog
You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
WRONG! ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE LOST THE POINT. NO EXAMINER SAW THE PROOF
OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT.
Wrong. The autopsy doctors saw the proof and then they lied.
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is just more repeating, so I'm outa here.
Quick, cry and run away. Like a Harris.
Says the man who constantly whines about being picked on.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 19:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
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
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out. But it's a simple problem that anyone can
answer if they were given the parameters, other than you. And yet we have
2 Technologists that agree with each other corroborating the facts. And
No, we don't. We only have you misrepresenting testimony.
Post by mainframetech
statements that the other prosectors saw the proof and Humes then went and
lied in the AR...had to be under orders.
Yeah, he lied and it was under orders. That does not mean that you are
smart enough to figure out what he lied about.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN? NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS SAW THE PROOF, AND
THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DECENT CONCLUSION. Stop putting out false
information.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
WRONG! Please supply a statement from a Medical Examiner that a 2
inch bruise was made by the bullet in the pleura and lung. Otherwise,
they didn't see it and couldn't possibly make a reasonable conclusion from
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.
Depends on the strike and the bruise left. Amazing that you've tried to
fake your way past your grazing experience. A missile must strike a
tissue to lave a bruise, and if the missile is a bullet, it won't just
bounce off and go on its merry way. It will tear out a piece of meat from
the person it grazes. It's not a simple ball.
Post by bigdog
You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
WRONG! ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE LOST THE POINT. NO EXAMINER SAW THE PROOF
OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT.
Wrong. The autopsy doctors saw the proof and then they lied.
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is just more repeating, so I'm outa here.
Quick, cry and run away. Like a Harris.
Says the man who constantly whines about being picked on.
I don't cry and run away. Bring it on, wiseguy.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-04 14:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
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
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out. But it's a simple problem that anyone can
answer if they were given the parameters, other than you. And yet we have
2 Technologists that agree with each other corroborating the facts. And
No, we don't. We only have you misrepresenting testimony.
Post by mainframetech
statements that the other prosectors saw the proof and Humes then went and
lied in the AR...had to be under orders.
Yeah, he lied and it was under orders. That does not mean that you are
smart enough to figure out what he lied about.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN? NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS SAW THE PROOF, AND
THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DECENT CONCLUSION. Stop putting out false
information.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
WRONG! Please supply a statement from a Medical Examiner that a 2
inch bruise was made by the bullet in the pleura and lung. Otherwise,
they didn't see it and couldn't possibly make a reasonable conclusion from
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.
Depends on the strike and the bruise left. Amazing that you've tried to
fake your way past your grazing experience. A missile must strike a
tissue to lave a bruise, and if the missile is a bullet, it won't just
bounce off and go on its merry way. It will tear out a piece of meat from
the person it grazes. It's not a simple ball.
Post by bigdog
You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
WRONG! ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE LOST THE POINT. NO EXAMINER SAW THE PROOF
OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT.
Wrong. The autopsy doctors saw the proof and then they lied.
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is just more repeating, so I'm outa here.
Quick, cry and run away. Like a Harris.
Says the man who constantly whines about being picked on.
I don't cry and run away. Bring it on, wiseguy.
You just cry and then cry some more. Sad but amusing. Keep giving us
laughs, Anthony.

"Wiseguy"?? [snicker] The Roaring Twenties called. They want their slang
back.
bigdog
2017-08-02 03:49:14 UTC
Permalink
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
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Post by mainframetech
But it's a simple problem that anyone can
answer if they were given the parameters, other than you.
Your problem is you know so little about it that you don't even know what
you don't know. If anyone could render judgements about medical evidence
than there would be no need for anyone to spend years of training to learn
the craft. The truth is that anyone CAN'T do what those men did. It
requires considerable knowledge to discern entrance wounds from exit
wounds and the kind of damage a bullet can cause in a human body. For
example, you have the silly belief that a bullet has to strike tissue
directly in order to cause a contusion. Trained professionals know better.
But you are more comfortable with your silly layman's conclusions so you
just stick with those.
Post by mainframetech
And yet we have
2 Technologists that agree with each other corroborating the facts.
That's nice that two unqualified people share the same unqualified
opinion. Unfortunately that opinion is the polar opposite of what
everybody who is qualified has concluded. If it were true that anyone
could make these sort of judgements than the unqualified people would come
to the same conclusion as the people with years of training and
experience. Yet just the opposite is true and since you are so bad at
weighing evidence, you think the opinions of two 20-something techies
outweighs the unanimous opinion of dozens of trained medical examiners.
Post by mainframetech
And
statements that the other prosectors saw the proof and Humes then went and
lied in the AR...had to be under orders.
Those statements weren't made by the prosectors. Those statements were
made by the techies. There is nothing which corroborates the techies. They
alone reached these silly conclusions which you choose to buy into.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I guess all those highly esteemed medical examiners wasted years going to
school to become qualified as forensic medical examiners when they knew
everything they needed to know right out of high school.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN? NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS SAW THE PROOF, AND
THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DECENT CONCLUSION. Stop putting out false
information.
Even if you want to dismiss all the photographic and x-ray evidence the
review panels did see, you still have the opinions of the original three
pathologists who saw the same thing the techies saw and reached a
conclusion completely opposite of what your techies decided. And rather
than let their report tell us what they saw, you choose to let the techies
tell us what they saw. You couldn't be more ludicrous if you tried. You
have chosen to go all in with the least qualified people on that team and
ignore the verdict of all the pathologists as well as all the review
panels. Brilliant, Sherlock. Just brilliant.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everyone has had
bruises growing up and knows what they are, ands everyone knows what a
diameter is, and what 2 inches means. Anyone can figure out except the
weirdest folks, that a 2 inch bruise in an organ means the bullet strike
was in from the edge. Therefore if it were traveling at full speed, it
would have torn or punctured the pleura. Think it through.
I guess everyone except trained medical examiners can figure that out
because they knew all about the 2 inch bruise in the pleura and the lung
and still concluded the bullet went beyond and exited the throat.
WRONG! Please supply a statement from a Medical Examiner that a 2
inch bruise was made by the bullet in the pleura and lung. Otherwise,
they didn't see it and couldn't possibly make a reasonable conclusion from
it.
The report signed by the original pathologists stated there was such a
bruise and that the bullet exited. That's not what you want to believe so
you made up a story that they were ordered to falsify that report.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bruises are generally
caused by something striking in the middle of the bruise, not the tip.
I can speak from personal experience that is not true. As a former
baseball umpire I was struck many times by foul balls while working behind
home plate. Sometimes they would be direct strikes and other times they
would be glancing blows. Either would leave a bruise. A baseball is just
another missile. Though bigger than a bullet, the physics are the same.
Think about your personal experience. When a ball grazes, it moves
away from the person it hit because it's not as powerful as a bullet. If
it had been, it would have taken a slice out of you as it passed and
grazed you.
It still continued on past me after causing the bruise. A missile does not
need to make a direct strike to bruise soft tissue.
Depends on the strike and the bruise left. Amazing that you've tried to
fake your way past your grazing experience. A missile must strike a
tissue to lave a bruise,
Find a competent medical examiner who thinks so. Can't do it? Didn't think
so.
Post by mainframetech
and if the missile is a bullet, it won't just
bounce off and go on its merry way. It will tear out a piece of meat from
the person it grazes. It's not a simple ball.
More of your amateurish opinions which count for nothing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You would think that if your argument had any merit, some medical examiner
somewhere in this world would agree with you. That person doesn't seem to
exist.
WRONG! ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE LOST THE POINT. NO EXAMINER SAW THE PROOF
OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT.
I didn't ask you to cite a medical examiner who saw the proof. I asked you
to cite a medical examiner who shares your opinion that a bullet must
actually strike tissue in order to cause bruising.
Post by mainframetech
The rest here is just more repeating, so I'm outa here.
You've said that before but you keep coming back for me. You must be a
glutton for punishment.
mainframetech
2017-08-03 02:19:35 UTC
Permalink
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
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here. There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK. It was stated simply, NOT "figured out". Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.




Everything after this is more of your repeating everything over and
over, and as they say, if you keep doin' what you bin doin', you'll keep
gettin' what you bin gettin'.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-04 01:44:34 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here.
Certainly not you.
Post by mainframetech
There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK.
You believe that because you put more faith in the opinions of a couple 20
something technicians rather than the trained pathologists. Thinking like
that is the reason you can't figure this thing out. And likely never will.
Post by mainframetech
It was stated simply, NOT "figured out".
Far more qualified people stated something different but you refuse to
believe them.
Post by mainframetech
Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.
Did you phone a friend to help you with that?
Post by mainframetech
Everything after this is more of your repeating everything over and
over, and as they say, if you keep doin' what you bin doin', you'll keep
gettin' what you bin gettin'.
You keep repeating silliness. I keep pointing out how silly it is.
mainframetech
2017-08-05 02:36:46 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here.
Certainly not you.
Post by mainframetech
There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK.
You believe that because you put more faith in the opinions of a couple 20
something technicians rather than the trained pathologists. Thinking like
that is the reason you can't figure this thing out. And likely never will.
Post by mainframetech
It was stated simply, NOT "figured out".
Far more qualified people stated something different but you refuse to
believe them.
WRONG! Stop passing out false information. You know damn well that
the medical panels never saw the proof in the body and therefore could not
render a valid conclusion. They simply went with the AR statements, which
we know now were ordered and not true. If they had seen the proof in the
body with the organs removed, as did the complete autopsy team, then they
would have ruled differently.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.
Did you phone a friend to help you with that?
Typical ad hominem attack proof that there is no decent response to
proof and logic.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everything after this is more of your repeating everything over and
over, and as they say, if you keep doin' what you bin doin', you'll keep
gettin' what you bin gettin'.
You keep repeating silliness. I keep pointing out how silly it is.
WRONG! Forget it! You know full well that you are the one repeating
the same questions and comments over and over again, and I then have to
correct you once again. If you stop repeating yourself, then I need not
correct you. If anyone cared, they can go back in our conversations and
see for themselves.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-06 03:58:32 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here.
Certainly not you.
Post by mainframetech
There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK.
You believe that because you put more faith in the opinions of a couple 20
something technicians rather than the trained pathologists. Thinking like
that is the reason you can't figure this thing out. And likely never will.
Post by mainframetech
It was stated simply, NOT "figured out".
Far more qualified people stated something different but you refuse to
believe them.
WRONG! Stop passing out false information. You know damn well that
the medical panels never saw the proof in the body and therefore could not
render a valid conclusion.
So apparently you think the only people capable of rendering a valid conclusion were the two technicians ages 20 and 21. No wonder you are so perpetually confused.
Post by mainframetech
They simply went with the AR statements, which
we know now were ordered and not true. If they had seen the proof in the
body with the organs removed, as did the complete autopsy team, then they
would have ruled differently.
The complete autopsy team did not see that. Only the two techies thought they saw that. The qualified people on the team saw something entirely different.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.
Did you phone a friend to help you with that?
Typical ad hominem attack proof that there is no decent response to
proof and logic.
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everything after this is more of your repeating everything over and
over, and as they say, if you keep doin' what you bin doin', you'll keep
gettin' what you bin gettin'.
You keep repeating silliness. I keep pointing out how silly it is.
WRONG! Forget it! You know full well that you are the one repeating
the same questions and comments over and over again, and I then have to
correct you once again. If you stop repeating yourself, then I need not
correct you. If anyone cared, they can go back in our conversations and
see for themselves.
You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over that the whole autopsy
team saw proof the bullet never went beyond the pleura when in fact only
the two techies saw it that way. But of course you believe them and
disregard everybody else.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 14:04:22 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here.
Certainly not you.
Post by mainframetech
There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK.
You believe that because you put more faith in the opinions of a couple 20
something technicians rather than the trained pathologists. Thinking like
that is the reason you can't figure this thing out. And likely never will.
Post by mainframetech
It was stated simply, NOT "figured out".
Far more qualified people stated something different but you refuse to
believe them.
WRONG! Stop passing out false information. You know damn well that
the medical panels never saw the proof in the body and therefore could not
render a valid conclusion.
So apparently you think the only people capable of rendering a valid conclusion were the two technicians ages 20 and 21. No wonder you are so perpetually confused.
Post by mainframetech
They simply went with the AR statements, which
we know now were ordered and not true. If they had seen the proof in the
body with the organs removed, as did the complete autopsy team, then they
would have ruled differently.
The complete autopsy team did not see that. Only the two techies thought they saw that. The qualified people on the team saw something entirely different.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.
Did you phone a friend to help you with that?
Typical ad hominem attack proof that there is no decent response to
proof and logic.
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everything after this is more of your repeating everything over and
over, and as they say, if you keep doin' what you bin doin', you'll keep
gettin' what you bin gettin'.
You keep repeating silliness. I keep pointing out how silly it is.
WRONG! Forget it! You know full well that you are the one repeating
the same questions and comments over and over again, and I then have to
correct you once again. If you stop repeating yourself, then I need not
correct you. If anyone cared, they can go back in our conversations and
see for themselves.
You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over that the whole autopsy
team saw proof the bullet never went beyond the pleura when in fact only
the two techies saw it that way. But of course you believe them and
disregard everybody else.
The thing he doesn't understand is what the pleura is.
He thinks it is a curtain between the ribs and the lungs so a bullet
would have to go through it to get to the windpipe.
He still doesn't grasp the concept that it's only a thin covering over
each lung separately. He know absolutely nothing about anatomy so when
he reads anything medical he gets easily confused.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 14:35:21 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here. There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK. It was stated simply, NOT "figured out". Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.
Why is it that McAdams allows you call someone stupid and he won't even
allow me to call an idea stupid?
Post by mainframetech
Everything after this is more of your repeating everything over and
over, and as they say, if you keep doin' what you bin doin', you'll keep
gettin' what you bin gettin'.
Chris
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-05 23:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
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
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
WRONG! You just can't get it! A 2 inch bruise isn't caused by a
bullet barely touching the tip of the tissue.
Is that your opinion or do you have someone knowledgeable to back you up
on that?
A standard knowledge of physics is all that's needed.
So you don't have anybody knowledgeable that shares your opinion.
I see you left yourself out.
I've never pretended to be knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine.
That's your gig. You pretend by looking at a few photographs and listening
to what a couple techies in their early 20s remembered decades later that
you can figure out things which men who were trained and devoted their
professional lives to forensic medicine were unable to discern. It just
can't get any sillier than that.
Stop acting stupid! No one "figured out things" here. There was clear
evidence seen by all that the back wound bullet never left the body of
JFK. It was stated simply, NOT "figured out". Get your head on right.
It's the same as looking at the sky and saying it is blue. No figuring
needed.
Why is it that McAdams allows you call someone stupid and he won't even
allow me to call an idea stupid?
Why is it that you can't stop whining like my bitch dog?
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-27 03:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Ace Kefford
2017-08-03 02:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Who gave the orders to Humes? Any evidence of that person or group giving
such orders?
mainframetech
2017-08-04 01:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Who gave the orders to Humes? Any evidence of that person or group giving
such orders?
Yes, there is evidence that orders were given to Humes and the other
prosectors. It was shown that the whole autopsy team saw the proof that
the back wound bullet had not penetrated past the pleura and lung in the
body of JFK. Since Humes saw that proof and still wrote the complete
opposite in the AR, it had to be wrong, and he was not one to take the
initiative in such an important case and write incorrect information in
the Autopsy Report (AR). Since he could not do it, it had to be he was
responding to orders, and that also explains why it was so important to
steal the body from the Dallas Medical Examiner (Earl Rose). Because they
had to get to a military hospital where they could issue orders to the
pathologists that did the autopsy as to what their findings would be. As
long as they had a plausible excuse, the pathologists would follow the
orders.

The best person to have issued the orders was Admiral Burkley, the
president's physician, he was present and he was in my list of suspects.
He had contact with many of the conspirators as well.

To back up the findings from within the body, here's an interview with
Paul O'Connor, Technologist on the autopsy team:

"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

Thee interview was taken the same as testimony with nothing added or
interpreted by the author.

The other Technologist (James Jenkins) corroborated what O'Connor saw.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 22:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Who gave the orders to Humes? Any evidence of that person or group giving
such orders?
Yes, there is evidence that orders were given to Humes and the other
prosectors. It was shown that the whole autopsy team saw the proof that
the back wound bullet had not penetrated past the pleura and lung in the
body of JFK. Since Humes saw that proof and still wrote the complete
opposite in the AR, it had to be wrong, and he was not one to take the
initiative in such an important case and write incorrect information in
the Autopsy Report (AR). Since he could not do it, it had to be he was
responding to orders, and that also explains why it was so important to
steal the body from the Dallas Medical Examiner (Earl Rose). Because they
had to get to a military hospital where they could issue orders to the
pathologists that did the autopsy as to what their findings would be. As
long as they had a plausible excuse, the pathologists would follow the
orders.
The best person to have issued the orders was Admiral Burkley, the
president's physician, he was present and he was in my list of suspects.
He had contact with many of the conspirators as well.
To back up the findings from within the body, here's an interview with
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Thee interview was taken the same as testimony with nothing added or
interpreted by the author.
The other Technologist (James Jenkins) corroborated what O'Connor saw.
Chris
CHris, you're not trying hard enough. Why don't you come up with a new
theory that the bullet bounced off the pleura?


You don't even know what the pleura is. It is only a covering over each
lung. There is plenty of room for a 6.8mm bullet to go between the lungs
without having to hit the pleura.

Loading Image...
bigdog
2017-08-05 03:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Who gave the orders to Humes? Any evidence of that person or group giving
such orders?
Yes, there is evidence that orders were given to Humes and the other
prosectors. It was shown that the whole autopsy team saw the proof that
the back wound bullet had not penetrated past the pleura and lung in the
body of JFK. Since Humes saw that proof and still wrote the complete
opposite in the AR, it had to be wrong, and he was not one to take the
initiative in such an important case and write incorrect information in
the Autopsy Report (AR). Since he could not do it, it had to be he was
responding to orders, and that also explains why it was so important to
steal the body from the Dallas Medical Examiner (Earl Rose). Because they
had to get to a military hospital where they could issue orders to the
pathologists that did the autopsy as to what their findings would be. As
long as they had a plausible excuse, the pathologists would follow the
orders.
There are so many logical fallacies in the above paragraph it is hard to
know where to start so why don't we just take them in order.

First it has not been "shown that the whole autopsy team saw the proof
that the back wound bullet had not penetrated past the pleura and lung in
the body of JFK". What you have shown is that the opinion of two
technicians disagreed with the opinion expressed in the autopsy report
which all three pathologists signed. For some strange reason you find the
opinion of two techies in their early 20s to be more compelling than the
written opinion of the three pathologists. You've never given an
intelligent reason for doing so.

The fact Humes wrote something different than what the techies remembered
decades later does not mean that what he wrote had to be wrong. The
likelihood is that decades later the memories of the techies was wrong.
The other possibility of course is they made it up to get attention. Of
course those possibilities don't fit with your beliefs so you won't
consider them, but there is no logical reason to dismiss them.

This does not explain why the body was taken out of Dallas. Once again
there are perfectly plausible reasons which you refuse to consider. The SS
wanted to get LBJ into the air ASAP in case he too was a target of
assassination. At that point they didn't know what they were up against.
LBJ was not going to leave Jackie behind for PR reasons. Jackie was not
going to leave the body of her slain husband behind for reasons even you
should be able to figure. The only way to get LBJ to agree to take off for
Washington was to get the body on the plane.
Post by mainframetech
The best person to have issued the orders was Admiral Burkley, the
president's physician, he was present and he was in my list of suspects.
He had contact with many of the conspirators as well.
You have given no evidence Burkley or anyone else ordered the pathologists
to issue a fraudulent AR. You have simply made that up out of thin air.
Post by mainframetech
To back up the findings from within the body, here's an interview with
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Thee interview was taken the same as testimony with nothing added or
interpreted by the author.
The other Technologist (James Jenkins) corroborated what O'Connor saw.
So on the word of a techie who was 21 years old at the time, you are
inventing a tale of all sorts of malfeasance by the SS, JFK's personal
physician, and the three pathologists and complete incompetence by the
various review panels who unanimously concurred with the core findings of
the autopsy that JFK was shot twice from behind.

This is how conspiracy hobbyists weigh evidence. They find the least
credible source they can find and dismiss all far more compelling evidence
to get the scales to tip the way they want them to. Of course they are
fooling nobody but themselves.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 22:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Who gave the orders to Humes? Any evidence of that person or group giving
such orders?
Yes, there is evidence that orders were given to Humes and the other
prosectors. It was shown that the whole autopsy team saw the proof that
the back wound bullet had not penetrated past the pleura and lung in the
body of JFK. Since Humes saw that proof and still wrote the complete
opposite in the AR, it had to be wrong, and he was not one to take the
initiative in such an important case and write incorrect information in
the Autopsy Report (AR). Since he could not do it, it had to be he was
responding to orders, and that also explains why it was so important to
steal the body from the Dallas Medical Examiner (Earl Rose). Because they
had to get to a military hospital where they could issue orders to the
pathologists that did the autopsy as to what their findings would be. As
long as they had a plausible excuse, the pathologists would follow the
orders.
There are so many logical fallacies in the above paragraph it is hard to
know where to start so why don't we just take them in order.
First it has not been "shown that the whole autopsy team saw the proof
that the back wound bullet had not penetrated past the pleura and lung in
the body of JFK". What you have shown is that the opinion of two
technicians disagreed with the opinion expressed in the autopsy report
which all three pathologists signed. For some strange reason you find the
opinion of two techies in their early 20s to be more compelling than the
written opinion of the three pathologists. You've never given an
intelligent reason for doing so.
The fact Humes wrote something different than what the techies remembered
The fact that Humes had to burn the first autopsy report and write a new
one tells you that he lied and covered up his incompetence.
Or maybe you fell for his Ice Bullet Theory.
Post by bigdog
decades later does not mean that what he wrote had to be wrong. The
likelihood is that decades later the memories of the techies was wrong.
It's not up to you as part of the cover-up to determine that.
You've already been disqualified.
Post by bigdog
The other possibility of course is they made it up to get attention. Of
course those possibilities don't fit with your beliefs so you won't
consider them, but there is no logical reason to dismiss them.
This does not explain why the body was taken out of Dallas. Once again
We've been over this before. LBJ needed to get on the plane and back to
Washington to fight WWIII and he wouldn't leave without Jackie and
Jackie wouldn't leave without her husband.
Post by bigdog
there are perfectly plausible reasons which you refuse to consider. The SS
wanted to get LBJ into the air ASAP in case he too was a target of
Not exactly. Also to be able to launch a counter attack.
Post by bigdog
assassination. At that point they didn't know what they were up against.
LBJ was not going to leave Jackie behind for PR reasons. Jackie was not
going to leave the body of her slain husband behind for reasons even you
should be able to figure. The only way to get LBJ to agree to take off for
Washington was to get the body on the plane.
Post by mainframetech
The best person to have issued the orders was Admiral Burkley, the
president's physician, he was present and he was in my list of suspects.
He had contact with many of the conspirators as well.
You have given no evidence Burkley or anyone else ordered the pathologists
to issue a fraudulent AR. You have simply made that up out of thin air.
It was Stover not Burkely.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
To back up the findings from within the body, here's an interview with
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Thee interview was taken the same as testimony with nothing added or
interpreted by the author.
The other Technologist (James Jenkins) corroborated what O'Connor saw.
So on the word of a techie who was 21 years old at the time, you are
inventing a tale of all sorts of malfeasance by the SS, JFK's personal
physician, and the three pathologists and complete incompetence by the
various review panels who unanimously concurred with the core findings of
the autopsy that JFK was shot twice from behind.
This is how conspiracy hobbyists weigh evidence. They find the least
credible source they can find and dismiss all far more compelling evidence
to get the scales to tip the way they want them to. Of course they are
fooling nobody but themselves.
Find a whistleblower. Don't accept the official lies.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 14:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
WRONG! You've failed again. It was clear that the bullet actually HIT
the pleura and the right lung. And the bruises were 2 inches wide.
Since three are no bullets which are 2 inches wide, that should tell you
that a bullet can cause bruising to tissue beyond it's immediate path. It
doesn't have to actually strike the tissue to bruise it.
Post by mainframetech
I said before 'think what that means', but you had to jump and didn't listen
once again. Plain foolishness. With a bruise of 2 inches across, the
bullet did NOT "pass over the pleura", it hit it solidly.
Funny how not a single medical examiner agrees with your analysis.
Post by mainframetech
And that strike
stopped it dead right where it was.
Still no medical examiner to agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
This all means that the pleura was in
the way of the bullet when it tried to go through it, but the bullets
energy was too weak and the pleura is a strong leathery tissue. The
pleura had NO tear or puncture, so it stopped the bullet cold.
Why would we accept your analysis of the medical evidence when far more
qualified people have weighed in on it and they all disagree with you?
Post by mainframetech
It didn't take some 'expert' to see the problem, it took anyone with
an average IQ to see what happened.
No it doesn't take an expert to come up with such a goofy conclusion. It
takes a rank amateur with absolutely no training in forensic medicine. For
that you are eminently qualified.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Doesn't matter because the bullet HIT the pleura. The proof is the 2
inch wide bruise on both pleura and lung.
If that was proof the bullet had actually hit the pleura and lung, don't
you think qualified medical examiners would have reached that conclusion?
Post by mainframetech
If it had gone beyond, it would
have torn or punctured the pleura and lung too. And interestingly enough
there is a problem with the AR saying the tip of the lung was hit, because
Jenkins saw that the bullet had struck the "middle lobe' of the lung.
You know, the one in the middle, and NOT at the top.
Jenkins wasn't a qualified medical examiner. Three pathologists signed a
report that said something very different than what Jenkins remembered
years later. I'm going with them.
So, you believe in the ICE BULLET THEORY?
Humes was ordered to destroy the first autopsy report because it said
conspiracy. He was ORDERED what conclusions they must reach.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Yes, but not because I'm an expert, but because I know things they
didn't know at the time because they were treated like mushrooms. They
were kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Seems like you could produce a large mushroom crop, since you are
perpetually in the dark and never short on bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
NONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. They had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Now don't go and be stupid again. It doesn't become you. There was no
need to explain anything to the 'experts'. They just weren't given the
right information to form conclusions, but the technologists had seen the
prob lem and the PROOF of the back wound bullet.
Oh, the "right information" was what the techies came up with and not the
pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
You're beginning to repeat yourself again. I'm not sure I want to
keep saying the same things over and over when you don't listen.
Then why do you?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Repetitive.
I guess it must get tiresome to have the fallacies in your reasoning
continually pointed out to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech
"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
WRONG again! You'll never listen. The question had nothing to do with
a probe having difficulty going through a normal bullet path. It had to
do with the chest cavity being EMPTY of organs and only having the pleura
present. Jenkins saw the probe from the other side rubbing on the pleura
on the open side of the chest. Jenkins could see the whole pleura, and
there was no tear or puncture in it to let the probe go through. And
don't try to say that the pleura closed up after a bullet passed through.
It is not the same kind of soft tissue.
Did you realize you just disputed your own statement?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetech
You replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
You forget that Finck was one of the prosectors that was ordered to
lie, and so his testimony can't be trusted elsewhere. He would keep
telling the same lie wherever he was.
Since all the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions
that conflict with your beliefs, you were forced to dream up imaginary
orders that they were ordered to lie. Your "evidence" of these orders is
that the qualified people on the autopsy team reached conclusions that
conflict with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Your phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
WRONG! Now you've at least given us the proof of your bullshit! The
bullet STRUCK the pleura and the right lung, and you're trying to get away
with a story like that!
You seem to be the only one who thinks so. There are certainly no
competent medical examiners who agree with you.
Post by mainframetech
For shame! The bruises are the proof, and since
the bruises were 2 inches wide, that means that the strike was not at the
TIP of the lung, but further in from there. And if Jenkins is right as to
the placement of the bruises, it was in the 'middle lobe' of the lung, NOT
the top lobe.
I'll go with what the original pathologists and all the review panels
concluded and dismiss Jenkins. But of course you prefer to go with the
least qualified people available. You'd cite the janitor if he had
rendered an opinion that was in line with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Not NEAR the track, but at the END of the track. If it was NEAR the
track, there wouldn't be 2 inch bruises.
There is no evidence the bruised pleura was at the end of the bullet
track. It would be ludicrous to think that it was because it would require
an extremely weak bullet to penetrate no further than the pleura and a
bullet that weak could not have reached the target for reasons already
explained to you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
No, they could not figure it out.
Because they weren't as unqualified as you.
Post by mainframetech
They had a phony AR telling them the
wrong thing, and they had NO VIEW of the truth, and no interview with the
full autopsy team, so they couldn't possibly come up with a proper
conclusion.
Their job was to compare the findings in the AR with the photographic and
x-ray evidence to determine if those findings were valid. Despite having
some issues with the process, they ALL concurred with the finding that the
bullet that struck JFK in the back exited from his throat. No ifs, ands,
or buts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Jenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
You'll never stop being ridiculous. Jenkins didn't have to "render"
medical opinions. Like anyone, he could see normally.
If being able to see normally was the only qualification needed to analyze
medical evidence, we would have no need of trained medical examiners. We
could get anybody to perform forensic autopsies. Even the janitor.
Post by mainframetech
Everything is news to you if it proves your stupid WCR is wrong.
"James Jenkins at the age of twenty was involved in the autopsy of John F
Kennedy. He help lift the body and was one of the medical corpsman
assigned that day in November to assist the doctors. After the service Jim
went back to college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree at the
University of Mississippi, and, later, also acquired a clinical pathology
masters degree of Combined Clinical Sciences."
From: https://www.gofundme.com/betrayalbook
"Jenkins: Right, because first of all we don't really have credibility. I
don't know what the educational background of the others is, but I have a
masters in combined sciences and that includes pathology and anatomy."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 102
I googled for James Jenkins credentials and this questionable website is
the only one that indicates he went on to receive a masters degree in
clinical pathology. But even assuming the claim is valid, clinical
pathology has almost nothing to do with forensic pathology. It is a
completely different discipline and Jenkins to this day is not a qualified
"Clinical Pathology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the
diagnosis of disease based on the laboratory analysis of bodily fluids,
such as blood, urine, and tissue homogenates or extracts using the tools
of chemistry, microbiology, hematology and molecular pathology. This
specialty requires a medical residency."
Absolutely nothing to do with performing autopsies on gunshot victims.
Turning to a clinical pathologist to render judgements on forensic
pathology would be like asking a plumber to fix your car.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
WRONG! There was NO CONCLUSION to reach. The fact was staring them in
the face, no thinking required.
The only evidence you have of that is what the 20 year old techie said. To
you that trumps everything else.
Post by mainframetech
No medical expertise needed.
This statement speaks volumes about your approach.
Post by mainframetech
There was
no tear or puncture in the pleura, yet there were bruises on the pleura
and the lung.
Yes there were caused by the nearby passing of the bullet that tore
through the strap muscles, nicked the trachea and exited the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Repetitive.
Apparently this is the all you've got left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
He wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Repetitive.
Throwing in the towel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Who are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Repetitive.
No, this is the first time I have hurled that insult your way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Not to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetech
It needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Repetitive.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Repetitive.
Since all you can do now is filibuster, it's time to snip the rest of your
post.
Who gave the orders to Humes? Any evidence of that person or group giving
such orders?
Stover. Read the damn documents.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-20 19:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdams
Did you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy???s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdams
All of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Don't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdams
A centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I???d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That???s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That???s about,
I???d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there. However, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity. Now think
carefully about this. He was looking form inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
As shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
Unfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Remember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body? He was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Got it yet? I know you have difficulty in picturing things.
Oh, the irony.
You feel some of it coming on again?
Chris
When Dr. Crenshaw saw the autopsy photos he said that Perry would not
have made a mess of the tracheotomy like that.
a***@gmail.com
2018-11-05 04:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to his HSCA interview.
Reading this, I got the opinion that Mr. O'Connoer had a chip on his
shoulder. For what I do not know. But he was asked to leave the autopsy
for some reason.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md64/html/Image0.htm
Untrue. Paul was a friend of mine in Gainesville. He wasn't kicked out.
Loading...