Discussion:
The Autopsy
(too old to reply)
Mark
2018-08-05 14:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
bigdog
2018-08-06 16:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well. The only law enforcement personnel on board AF1
were the Secret Service and investigating murders was not something they
normally did. Still it seems to me somebody should have understood the
difference between a normal autopsy and a medico-legal autopsy and
realized they were two separate disciplines. Here are a couple websites
which explain this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925615/

https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/

Some of the terminology used in the first one suggests to me this is a
British website but I'm guessing the issues are much the same.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-07 15:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well. The only law enforcement personnel on board AF1
were the Secret Service and investigating murders was not something they
normally did. Still it seems to me somebody should have understood the
difference between a normal autopsy and a medico-legal autopsy and
realized they were two separate disciplines. Here are a couple websites
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925615/
https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/
Some of the terminology used in the first one suggests to me this is a
British website but I'm guessing the issues are much the same.
Yes, but the laws are not the same. JFK did not get a legal and complete
autopsy.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 01:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well. The only law enforcement personnel on board AF1
were the Secret Service and investigating murders was not something they
normally did. Still it seems to me somebody should have understood the
difference between a normal autopsy and a medico-legal autopsy and
realized they were two separate disciplines. Here are a couple websites
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925615/
https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/
Some of the terminology used in the first one suggests to me this is a
British website but I'm guessing the issues are much the same.
Yes, but the laws are not the same. JFK did not get a legal and complete
autopsy.
True, but what difference does it really make? We're certainly not
concerned with "cause of death" as is often the case in an autopsy.

Could it have been a better autopsy? Certainly. But Humes found out all
the most important things: 1) location of wounds, 2) classification of
wounds [i.e. entrance/exit], 3) extract bullets (if any) for evidence.

Now, I realize this is where the CTs jump on the fact that he didn't track
the neck/back wound and did not know (at the time of the autopsy) about
the throat wound. But, knowing what we know now, was his final conclusion
really wrong? Not likely - because the silly notion that Kennedy was shot
BOTH in the back AND the neck and neither bullet exited nor stayed
embedded is too ridiculous to consider especially when a much more obvious
explanation presents itself.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well.
Obviously? Do you use that term when you have no proof of what you're
saying? Why would he be in an emotional state?
Post by bigdog
The only law enforcement personnel on board AF1
were the Secret Service and investigating murders was not something they
normally did.
Still it seems to me somebody should have understood the
difference between a normal autopsy and a medico-legal autopsy and
realized they were two separate disciplines. Here are a couple websites
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925615/
https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/
Some of the terminology used in the first one suggests to me this is a
British website but I'm guessing the issues are much the same.
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well.
Obviously? Do you use that term when you have no proof of what you're
saying? Why would he be in an emotional state?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because his brother had JUST BEEN ASSASSINATED.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well.
Obviously? Do you use that term when you have no proof of what you're
saying? Why would he be in an emotional state?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because his brother had JUST BEEN ASSASSINATED.
I don't think you or any of us has info on the cold headiness of RFK.
We don't know if he was emotional or not, but no one caught him acting
emotionally during the last days.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well.
Obviously? Do you use that term when you have no proof of what you're
saying? Why would he be in an emotional state?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because his brother had JUST BEEN ASSASSINATED.
I don't think you or any of us has info on the cold headiness of RFK.
We don't know if he was emotional or not, but no one caught him acting
emotionally during the last days.
Those closest to him say he was devastated by his brother's death and
never really got over it. But you go on believing in his "cold headiness"
if that's what you need to float your boat.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-09 16:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
The most logical person to have been advising them on the legalities would
have been the Attorney General but obviously he would have been in an
emotional state as well.
Obviously? Do you use that term when you have no proof of what you're
saying? Why would he be in an emotional state?
Post by bigdog
The only law enforcement personnel on board AF1
were the Secret Service and investigating murders was not something they
normally did.
Still it seems to me somebody should have understood the
difference between a normal autopsy and a medico-legal autopsy and
realized they were two separate disciplines. Here are a couple websites
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925615/
https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/
Some of the terminology used in the first one suggests to me this is a
British website but I'm guessing the issues are much the same.
However, the laws may be different.
Mitch Todd
2018-08-06 16:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
bigdog
2018-08-07 05:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
Mitch Todd
2018-08-08 05:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.

Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
mainframetech
2018-08-09 02:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
He was a year in Vietnam. I wonder what he worked on there.

Chris
Mitch Todd
2018-08-10 02:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
He was a year in Vietnam. I wonder what he worked on there.
A full year? Where did you get that? Finck said "last year in February
1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound
ballistics mission" He had to have been back at least by Nov 22 :-P
mainframetech
2018-08-11 22:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
He was a year in Vietnam. I wonder what he worked on there.
A full year? Where did you get that? Finck said "last year in February
1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound
ballistics mission" He had to have been back at least by Nov 22 :-P
Here's a statement from Finck from his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial:

"Going back to your question about my duties except a tour of duty of one
year in Vietnam as Commanding Officer of the Ninth Medical Laboratory, I
have been in charge of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the AFIP
since November, 1960 and I am still in charge of it. This branch is part
of the division of which I am also in charge and which includes
medical-legal areas such as accidents, poisonings, aircraft accidents,
ground traffic accidents, et cetera."

Chris
Mitch Todd
2018-08-13 05:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
He was a year in Vietnam. I wonder what he worked on there.
A full year? Where did you get that? Finck said "last year in February
1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound
ballistics mission" He had to have been back at least by Nov 22 :-P
"Going back to your question about my duties except a tour of duty of one
year in Vietnam as Commanding Officer of the Ninth Medical Laboratory, I
have been in charge of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the AFIP
since November, 1960 and I am still in charge of it. This branch is part
of the division of which I am also in charge and which includes
medical-legal areas such as accidents, poisonings, aircraft accidents,
ground traffic accidents, et cetera."
...Which sounds like that tour of duty happened well after
the assassination. We were talking about Finck's experience
at the time of the autopsy.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-09 16:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.
When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
But didn't he see a lot of Carcano wounds in WWII?
Ace Kefford
2018-08-15 00:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.
When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
But didn't he see a lot of Carcano wounds in WWII?
"But didn't he see a lot of Carcano wounds in WWII?"

Are you setting up the punchline about Italian war surplus rifles in
excellent condition?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-16 17:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.
When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
In those days, ME's still generally resided in large cities; outlying
counties were largely run by the old coroner system. It's still done
that way in rural areas who can't afford or attract a certified FP to
be an ME. DC may have had a civilian ME, but Fischer was probably the
most influential and respected ME of his day. He'd be the logical choice
had anyone in the Presidential entourage really understood the stakes.
Finck was certified (all of 18 months at the time), but if you look
carefully at his WC testimony, you'll appreciate how carefully they
tread around his lack of practical experience with GSW's.
But didn't he see a lot of Carcano wounds in WWII?
"But didn't he see a lot of Carcano wounds in WWII?"
Are you setting up the punchline about Italian war surplus rifles in
excellent condition?
No fair peeking. Wait for it, wait for it ....
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
The plotters who caused the murder of JFK in the first place knew they
had to have a military hospital do the autopsy, or they were sunk. At
such a hospital they could issue orders and control the results of the
autopsy, which was not the case in a civilian autopsy.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
The plotters who caused the murder of JFK in the first place knew they
had to have a military hospital do the autopsy, or they were sunk. At
such a hospital they could issue orders and control the results of the
autopsy, which was not the case in a civilian autopsy.
So are you saying they had another team of doctors at Walter Reed ready to
do the body alterations in the event that hospital had been chosen? Or are
you saying the person who chose Bethesda was in on the plot?
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
The plotters who caused the murder of JFK in the first place knew they
had to have a military hospital do the autopsy, or they were sunk. At
such a hospital they could issue orders and control the results of the
autopsy, which was not the case in a civilian autopsy.
So are you saying they had another team of doctors at Walter Reed ready to
do the body alterations in the event that hospital had been chosen? Or are
you saying the person who chose Bethesda was in on the plot?
WRONG again! I'm not going with either choice. Don't try to outguess
me, you haven't a clue what I think. No team of doctors were ready
anywhere when AF1 was in the air and they were arguing which military
hospital they were going to do the autopsy at. When Jackie chose
Bethesda, that meant that someone had to call Bethesda and talk to the
doctor that would get the job of doing the autopsy. Humes was the senior
pathologist and he got it. He chose Boswell to work with him, and they
were waiting on the loading dock outside the morgue when the body arrived
in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm. I believe the orders as to what to do
in the Autopsy Report (AR) were given to Humes when he was called.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 23:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
They were primarily concerned about National Security. What if some
private doctor did an honest autopsy and said conspiracy?
That might cause WWIII, so the lesser of the evils was to lie.
Post by bigdog
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
As a diehard WC defender you are not supposed to admit things like that.
Post by bigdog
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
That's exactly what it means. YOU can't explain the bullet hole in the
forehead without opening the door to conspiracy.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 01:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
Exactly! As I've often said: It wasn't a good autopsy, but it was good
enough. There is simply no way a team of three pathologists, even though
they were not forensic pathologists, could possibly get the direction the
bullet went crashing through Kennedy's skull 180-degrees off. And this is
a point many of the BOH CTs make all the time.

The wound high on Kennedy's back had all the characteristics of an entry
wound. Elementary!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 21:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Any of the counties surrounding Washington DC as well as in DC would have
medical examiners with experience in medico-legal autopsies of gun shot
victims. Any would have been a better choice than Humes and Boswell. Finck
did have experience with wound ballistics but I don't know that he ever
conducted a medico-legal autopsy which is what was needed. In any case it
was an error in judgement which can't be corrected but that doesn't mean
we can't determine the truth from the information which was gathered at
the autopsy.
Exactly! As I've often said: It wasn't a good autopsy, but it was good
Exactly!!

But would they be cleared for National Security?
What if they came out and held a press conference the way Perry did and
say that it was a conspiracy because shots came from two different
directions. How long before the missiles would start to fall?
Post by d***@gmail.com
enough. There is simply no way a team of three pathologists, even though
they were not forensic pathologists, could possibly get the direction the
bullet went crashing through Kennedy's skull 180-degrees off. And this is
a point many of the BOH CTs make all the time.
What bullet?
You still can't explain how your shooting in the TSBD can hit JFK in he
forehead. Show me that trajectory.

Loading Image...

If we didn't have the evidence of the Zapruder film I bet that even YOU
would fall for that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The wound high on Kennedy's back had all the characteristics of an entry
wound. Elementary!
So what if it's obvious? The WC said it hit the NECK, not the BACK.
What are you trying to do, start WWIII?
You MUST OBEY the cover-up.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BT George
2018-08-07 05:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
Mitch Todd
2018-08-08 05:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
You are correct about the MMQB, but isn't 90% (at least) of the
continuing inquiry into the assassination the same thing? It's
a little late to worry about closing the gate when the herd
already done R U N N O F T.

That being said, I think Rose would have done a better job, maybe
more because he knew he needed to throw some sharp elbows to make
things happen right. The problem was that The Entourage wanted out
of Dallas right away. I think part of that was due to initial
suspicion that native right-wingers were responsible for the murder,
and may have been planning more. Better to get out of the snakes'
nest before the next viper struck, as it were. On a larger scale,
there tends to be a strong instinct to seek shelter in the immediate
wake of shock and tragedy. That would have meant the familiarity
of Washington DC. I also wouldn't put it out of my head that the SS
would be concerned that they didn't want to leave autopsy photos,
x-rays, etc in the hands of someone who they could not automatically
trust to keep it confidential. Commoners may not look at the King,
especially his innards!
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
And some of the photos were in doubt as to their legitimacy.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
And some of the photos were in doubt as to their legitimacy.
So is all the evidence that doesn't fit your theories which is pretty much
all the evidence we have.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
And some of the photos were in doubt as to their legitimacy.
So is all the evidence that doesn't fit your theories which is pretty much
all the evidence we have.
WRONG! Note my comment said "some of the photos", not ALL of the
photos. But I don't deal in "theories" like the WCR does. I like real
events and proof of them. Some of the evidence that is present is just
fine with me.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 23:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
Excuse me? Why do you put me in this delicate position where I have to
defend the SS? They did not make the decision, LBJ did.
And he only did he because he thought the Soviets might be getting ready
to attack.
Post by BT George
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
Well the photos and X-rays were more helpful because the original
doctors missed things on the body and were not allowed to study the
photos and the X-rays as later panels did.
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
The photos and x-rays were definitive. JFK was shot twice from behind. The
evidence is conclusive and unambiguous.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
The photos and x-rays were definitive. JFK was shot twice from behind. The
evidence is conclusive and unambiguous.
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by BT George
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Monday morning quarterbacking, but all of this could have been avoided if
the SS had not insisted ignoring Texas law and let Dr. Earl Rose do the
autopsy. I believe he, even then, was a Forensic Pathologist. As it is,
he didn't get his crack at it until he was a part of the HSCA Panel and
only had photos and X-Rays to go by.
The photos and x-rays were definitive. JFK was shot twice from behind. The
evidence is conclusive and unambiguous.
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
I've never met anyone with a screwier idea of what constitutes proof.
Steve BH
2018-08-11 22:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
color photo of the ruler and bullet hole very carefully:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf

Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
mainframetech
2018-08-13 06:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-14 01:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 00:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid. I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now. Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-15 18:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid. I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now. Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?
You continue to ask the same question because you've ignored the answers
you've been given. That's right out of the Bob Harris playbook. That's not
something I would be proud of.
Steve BH
2018-08-15 19:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid. I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now. Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?
Chris
Because the HSCA was still in the innocent era where the real autopsy
photo (any of them) would have been considered to shocking to publish. A
blowup of one them, showing just an enlarged hole, was not. So they used
the Dox drawing for the whole BOH photo, and not the entire photo.

We forget that our eight well-known autopsy photos today were leaked to
Groden DURING the HCSA hearings, and have SINCE become well-enough known
that, like the Z film after Geraldo showed it in 1975, we are no longer so
shocked (though I remember seeing the leaked autopsy photos first in a
copy of HIGH TREASON in the early 90's, and I WAS shocked then). But you
can't judge the HCSA by our modern standards.

We only have the luxury of seeing third or fourth generation copies, even
now.

These days you can download them off the internet. The color BOH photo
with the ruler, which shows the hole best, is sometimes printed in B&W.
That make things hard, as there is another BOH photo (no ruler) that was
B&W in original.

Now that we have these, we can compare Dox with the original photo. To my
eye, she is not totally accurate or faithful. Hairs near the hole are
slightly different, and the hole seems to have moved by a tiny bit (a few
mm). Blame Dox for that, not conspiracy.

The color photo with ruler that Dox (presumably) made her drawing from, IS
at least the same photo as the HCSA blowup showing the hole. Hair for hair
they are the same, although our leaked photo is blurrier, as befits its
leaked copy status. But if you are contentine that the HCSA hole-blowup
photo is fake, you have to explain how it matches the whole BOH photo that
was leaked to Groden during the HSCA hearings. Wow, the conspirators not
only made a fake blowup, but a fake whole photo, too that matches it, and
leaked that to Groden? The tricky bastards!
Mitch Todd
2018-08-18 20:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid. I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now. Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?
Chris
Because the HSCA was still in the innocent era where the real autopsy
photo (any of them) would have been considered to shocking to publish. A
blowup of one them, showing just an enlarged hole, was not. So they used
the Dox drawing for the whole BOH photo, and not the entire photo.
We forget that our eight well-known autopsy photos today were leaked to
Groden DURING the HCSA hearings, and have SINCE become well-enough known
that, like the Z film after Geraldo showed it in 1975, we are no longer so
shocked (though I remember seeing the leaked autopsy photos first in a
copy of HIGH TREASON in the early 90's, and I WAS shocked then). But you
can't judge the HCSA by our modern standards.
"Leaked to" or "pilfered by" Groden?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-20 14:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Steve BH
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve BH
    WRONG!  The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer
to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't.  The X-ray technician stated that many of the
X-rays he
took where missing from the archives.  Clearly, someone was
trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos.  And
in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from.  That
was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
    LOL!  Yep, I just did.  I take it you had a look at it too.
Talk about
baloney, that's it!  I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what
photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos.  I seriously doubt the photo you were
convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK.  Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
    I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid.  I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now.  Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet
hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?
Chris
Because the HSCA was still in the innocent era where the real autopsy
photo (any of them) would have been considered to shocking to publish. A
blowup of one them, showing just an enlarged hole, was not. So they used
the Dox drawing for the whole BOH photo, and not the entire photo.
We forget that our eight well-known autopsy photos today were leaked to
Groden DURING the HCSA hearings, and have SINCE become well-enough known
that, like the Z film after Geraldo showed it in 1975, we are no longer so
shocked (though I remember seeing the leaked autopsy photos first in a
copy of HIGH TREASON in the early 90's, and I WAS shocked then). But you
can't judge the HCSA by our modern standards.
"Leaked to" or "pilfered by" Groden?
Excuse me? You know nothing about Groden. He made COPIES of 8 color
photos and kept them for himself. He also kept some of the large
exhibits and gave some to me. I lept the one that the AARC did not want.
I was on my way to Washington, D.C to help the AARC sort out their
photos and stoppe overnight in PA.
The black and white prints were leaked to Mark Crouch and I've seen them
all in person, including the one with the light leak. Walt Brown sold
some of them at a conference in Washington. But .John was not allowed to
buy any.
r***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 14:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Steve BH
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve BH
    WRONG!  The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer
to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't.  The X-ray technician stated that many of the
X-rays he
took where missing from the archives.  Clearly, someone was
trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos.  And
in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from.  That
was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
    LOL!  Yep, I just did.  I take it you had a look at it too.
Talk about
baloney, that's it!  I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what
photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos.  I seriously doubt the photo you were
convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK.  Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
    I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid.  I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now.  Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet
hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?
Chris
Because the HSCA was still in the innocent era where the real autopsy
photo (any of them) would have been considered to shocking to publish. A
blowup of one them, showing just an enlarged hole, was not. So they used
the Dox drawing for the whole BOH photo, and not the entire photo.
We forget that our eight well-known autopsy photos today were leaked to
Groden DURING the HCSA hearings, and have SINCE become well-enough known
that, like the Z film after Geraldo showed it in 1975, we are no longer so
shocked (though I remember seeing the leaked autopsy photos first in a
copy of HIGH TREASON in the early 90's, and I WAS shocked then). But you
can't judge the HCSA by our modern standards.
"Leaked to" or "pilfered by" Groden?
Excuse me? You know nothing about Groden. He made COPIES of 8 color
photos and kept them for himself.
In other words, Groden pilfered he images by making
unauthorized copies for himself. Thanks for
the confirmation.

[...the rest was immaterial to the conversation, and was
deleted...]
claviger
2018-08-22 21:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
"Leaked to" or "pilfered by" Groden?
Excuse me? You know nothing about Groden. He made COPIES of 8 color
photos and kept them for himself.
In other words, Groden pilfered he images by making
unauthorized copies for himself. Thanks for
the confirmation.
[...the rest was immaterial to the conversation, and was
deleted...]
That is correct, Groden started his career in show business
as a thief. His career is showbiz crashed when he made the
ridiculous blunder in the O J Trial. The guy was a con artist
from start to finish who snookered the HSCA too. Now he
is doing a gig imitating Jabba the Hutt on the patio of the
North Pergola.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 21:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Steve BH
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve BH
    WRONG!  The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer
to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't.  The X-ray technician stated that many of the
X-rays he
took where missing from the archives.  Clearly, someone was
trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos.  And
in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from.  That
was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
    LOL!  Yep, I just did.  I take it you had a look at it too.
Talk about
baloney, that's it!  I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what
photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos.  I seriously doubt the photo you were
convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK.  Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
So there really is no evidence that you can't find a silly excuse to
dismiss. No matter how much evidence you are presented with that your
beliefs are wrong, you will continue to insist that your beliefs are valid
and it is the evidence that is wrong. It can't possibly be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
    I've pointed out the evidence, which you seem to want to avoid.  I
continue to ask the same question that you have run away from for a while
now.  Why did they choose to show an Ida Dox Drawing with a bullet
hole in
it, and NOT the real photo that the drawing was copied from?
Chris
Because the HSCA was still in the innocent era where the real autopsy
photo (any of them) would have been considered to shocking to publish. A
blowup of one them, showing just an enlarged hole, was not. So they used
the Dox drawing for the whole BOH photo, and not the entire photo.
We forget that our eight well-known autopsy photos today were leaked to
Groden DURING the HCSA hearings, and have SINCE become well-enough known
that, like the Z film after Geraldo showed it in 1975, we are no longer so
shocked (though I remember seeing the leaked autopsy photos first in a
copy of HIGH TREASON in the early 90's, and I WAS shocked then). But you
can't judge the HCSA by our modern standards.
"Leaked to" or "pilfered by" Groden?
Excuse me? You know nothing about Groden. He made COPIES of 8 color
photos and kept them for himself.
In other words, Groden pilfered he images by making
unauthorized copies for himself. Thanks for
the confirmation.
I don't know if that's the right word.
Maybe you could say he was doing his homework.
After all, he was a photographic consultant on the HSCA.
What about the CIA officer who was caught tampering with the autopsy
photos in the vault? Maybe he was just an interior decorator.
You've got to keep up with all the politically correct euphemisms.
Post by r***@gmail.com
[...the rest was immaterial to the conversation, and was
deleted...]
Steve BH
2018-08-15 00:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, ans third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
Chris
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)

Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.

If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
John McAdams
2018-08-15 00:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
You can post photos on the newsgroup.

The problem is, lots of people read the group on Google News, and
binaries don't show up there.

You can always upload to some site (Google Drive, for example) and
post a link.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-16 17:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Steve BH
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
You can post photos on the newsgroup.
The problem is, lots of people read the group on Google News, and
binaries don't show up there.
Yep, I remember those good old days. And then Comcast dropped ALL
newsgroups an ALL web sites. They can't handle the Truth.
Post by John McAdams
You can always upload to some site (Google Drive, for example) and
post a link.
I HATE Google Drive. I have often posted documents for people on my Web
sites and I shared my directories with Ken Rahn.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, and third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
Chris
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)
First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on. It's clear that the drawings were copied from
the real photo, but had a bullet hole added, but the real kicker is that
the HSCA admitted that they used a drawing in place of the real photo.
Here's the statement from the page (103) just previous to the drawing:

"(See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President's head.)" HSCA Vol.
7, Page 103


Found under the drawing on page 104

"Figure 13. -- Drawing depicting the posterior head wound."



In both cases above the drawing is admitted to be such by the HSCA.
Post by Steve BH
Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
Careful whose nose you rub. You might find your own rubbed raw in the
truth noted above by the HSCA themselves.

Now do you ant to try again to answer my question? Why would the HSCA
replace a photo with a drawing of the same photo?


Oh! Another bit of information, Humes during testimony spoke about the
'red spot' that has been depicted in the color photo we've been talking
about. It's the one that the HSCA wants us to believe is the entry wound
for a bullet. Humes, who we know was right up on top of the wound in
question stated that the 'red spot' "was nothing". Here's his statement:

"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded:
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”

So you see, the red spot you and the HSCA think is a bullet entrance,
was not anything of the kind.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-08-15 23:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)
First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on. It's clear that the drawings were copied from
the real photo, but had a bullet hole added, but the real kicker is that
the HSCA admitted that they used a drawing in place of the real photo.
Actually, they did publish a close up of the inshoot, although the
quality in a GPO published black and white volume is poor.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
"(See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President's head.)" HSCA Vol.
7, Page 103
Found under the drawing on page 104
"Figure 13. -- Drawing depicting the posterior head wound."
In both cases above the drawing is admitted to be such by the HSCA.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
Careful whose nose you rub. You might find your own rubbed raw in the
truth noted above by the HSCA themselves.
Now do you ant to try again to answer my question? Why would the HSCA
replace a photo with a drawing of the same photo?
To make the details they could clearly see in a stereo pair of camera
original color transparencies clear.
Post by mainframetech
Oh! Another bit of information, Humes during testimony spoke about the
'red spot' that has been depicted in the color photo we've been talking
about. It's the one that the HSCA wants us to believe is the entry wound
for a bullet. Humes, who we know was right up on top of the wound in
"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
So Humes, that scummy liar who altered Kennedy's body to conceal a
conspiracy, is now telling the absolute truth when it's convenient for
you.

Did it occur to you that for Humes to admit it was an inshoot would be
for him to admit that he screwed up big time?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-17 20:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)
First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on. It's clear that the drawings were copied from
the real photo, but had a bullet hole added, but the real kicker is that
the HSCA admitted that they used a drawing in place of the real photo.
Actually, they did publish a close up of the inshoot, although the
quality in a GPO published black and white volume is poor.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
"(See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President's head.)" HSCA Vol.
7, Page 103
Found under the drawing on page 104
"Figure 13. -- Drawing depicting the posterior head wound."
In both cases above the drawing is admitted to be such by the HSCA.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
Careful whose nose you rub. You might find your own rubbed raw in the
truth noted above by the HSCA themselves.
Now do you ant to try again to answer my question? Why would the HSCA
replace a photo with a drawing of the same photo?
To make the details they could clearly see in a stereo pair of camera
original color transparencies clear.
Silly and false. The drawings were only for the PUBLIC exhibits to be
published or shown to the public.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Oh! Another bit of information, Humes during testimony spoke about the
'red spot' that has been depicted in the color photo we've been talking
about. It's the one that the HSCA wants us to believe is the entry wound
for a bullet. Humes, who we know was right up on top of the wound in
"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
So Humes, that scummy liar who altered Kennedy's body to conceal a
conspiracy, is now telling the absolute truth when it's convenient for
you.
How could he be sure it was a conspiracy? So what if JFK was hit in the
forehead? Maybe he turned around. Humes was't there in the motorcade.
Post by John McAdams
Did it occur to you that for Humes to admit it was an inshoot would be
for him to admit that he screwed up big time?
Well, he did admit that he screwed up. He admitted that he burned the
original autopsy report. He admited that he did not recognize the bullet
wound in the throat. What mor do you want him to admit? He did not shoot
JFK!
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2018-08-22 14:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)
First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on. It's clear that the drawings were copied from
the real photo, but had a bullet hole added, but the real kicker is that
the HSCA admitted that they used a drawing in place of the real photo.
Actually, they did publish a close up of the inshoot, although the
quality in a GPO published black and white volume is poor.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
"(See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President's head.)" HSCA Vol.
7, Page 103
Found under the drawing on page 104
"Figure 13. -- Drawing depicting the posterior head wound."
In both cases above the drawing is admitted to be such by the HSCA.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
Careful whose nose you rub. You might find your own rubbed raw in the
truth noted above by the HSCA themselves.
Now do you ant to try again to answer my question? Why would the HSCA
replace a photo with a drawing of the same photo?
To make the details they could clearly see in a stereo pair of camera
original color transparencies clear.
Post by mainframetech
Oh! Another bit of information, Humes during testimony spoke about the
'red spot' that has been depicted in the color photo we've been talking
about. It's the one that the HSCA wants us to believe is the entry wound
for a bullet. Humes, who we know was right up on top of the wound in
"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
So Humes, that scummy liar who altered Kennedy's body to conceal a
conspiracy, is now telling the absolute truth when it's convenient for
you.
Did it occur to you that for Humes to admit it was an inshoot would be
for him to admit that he screwed up big time?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"So Humes, that scummy liar who altered Kennedy's body to conceal a
conspiracy, is now telling the absolute truth when it's convenient for
you.

"Did it occur to you that for Humes to admit it was an inshoot would be
for him to admit that he screwed up big time?"

John, this is a great point. The buffs will have the same witness or
participant be a skillful, evil, corrupt liar in one place and then a
teller of complete truth in other places, as they cherry pick their way to
"evidence" and "proof."

A corollary is that no one can ever misspeak or make a mistake or have
their statements summarized inaccurately by officials. If the mistake
supports Oswald as the lone assassin, then it proves that the person is a
liar. If on the other hand the mistake can be used to suggests some
discrepancy in the evidence or proof of conspiracy, then it is an
admission of absolute fact. Even better if that admission of absolute
fact is in an "official document."

The "indefatigable" (word always used for him) early critic Harold
Weisberg was a pioneer and frequent employer of these techniques. Many
years later at least one best-seller relied greatly on this "method" of
analysis and argument.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-23 02:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)
First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on. It's clear that the drawings were copied from
the real photo, but had a bullet hole added, but the real kicker is that
the HSCA admitted that they used a drawing in place of the real photo.
Actually, they did publish a close up of the inshoot, although the
quality in a GPO published black and white volume is poor.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
"(See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President's head.)" HSCA Vol.
7, Page 103
Found under the drawing on page 104
"Figure 13. -- Drawing depicting the posterior head wound."
In both cases above the drawing is admitted to be such by the HSCA.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=115
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
Careful whose nose you rub. You might find your own rubbed raw in the
truth noted above by the HSCA themselves.
Now do you ant to try again to answer my question? Why would the HSCA
replace a photo with a drawing of the same photo?
To make the details they could clearly see in a stereo pair of camera
original color transparencies clear.
Post by mainframetech
Oh! Another bit of information, Humes during testimony spoke about the
'red spot' that has been depicted in the color photo we've been talking
about. It's the one that the HSCA wants us to believe is the entry wound
for a bullet. Humes, who we know was right up on top of the wound in
"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
So Humes, that scummy liar who altered Kennedy's body to conceal a
conspiracy, is now telling the absolute truth when it's convenient for
you.
Did it occur to you that for Humes to admit it was an inshoot would be
for him to admit that he screwed up big time?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"So Humes, that scummy liar who altered Kennedy's body to conceal a
conspiracy, is now telling the absolute truth when it's convenient for
you.
"Did it occur to you that for Humes to admit it was an inshoot would be
for him to admit that he screwed up big time?"
Yes, he did? So what? Whatcha gonna do, fire him? He was just obeying
military orders.
Post by Ace Kefford
John, this is a great point. The buffs will have the same witness or
participant be a skillful, evil, corrupt liar in one place and then a
teller of complete truth in other places, as they cherry pick their way to
"evidence" and "proof."
Now you're talking about the CIA. Are you saying that they were involved?
Post by Ace Kefford
A corollary is that no one can ever misspeak or make a mistake or have
their statements summarized inaccurately by officials. If the mistake
How do you just ACCIDENTALLY burn the autopsy report in your fireplace?
Do YOU do things like that every day?
Post by Ace Kefford
supports Oswald as the lone assassin, then it proves that the person is a
liar. If on the other hand the mistake can be used to suggests some
Who's a liar? You mean everyone in the government? That is physically
impossible. Someone must have accidentally told the truth some time.
Post by Ace Kefford
discrepancy in the evidence or proof of conspiracy, then it is an
admission of absolute fact. Even better if that admission of absolute
fact is in an "official document."
You mean the document you destroyed?
Post by Ace Kefford
The "indefatigable" (word always used for him) early critic Harold
Weisberg was a pioneer and frequent employer of these techniques. Many
years later at least one best-seller relied greatly on this "method" of
analysis and argument.
Ever hear of the FOIA? Ever use it? I rest my cast.

Steve BH
2018-08-17 00:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The photos and X-rays were said by the photographer to have
been missing many shots from the sets, in the case of the photographer, he
said he was forced to sign off that ALL photos were present, when they
really weren't. The X-ray technician stated that many of the X-rays he
took where missing from the archives. Clearly, someone was trying to
force the conclusions of anyone that looked at the photos. And in the
case of the Dox drawing of the BOH, that showed a bullet hole when there
wasn't one in the real photo the drawing was copied from. That was used
in the HSCA final report, which proves that the real photo didn't have any
bullet hole in it.
Chris
You're completely wrong about this, of course. The HSCA looked at the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
Why don't you READ the damn HSCA report. See page 105 figure 14.
LOL! Yep, I just did. I take it you had a look at it too. Talk about
baloney, that's it! I say that because first, I have NO IDEA what photo
that clip was ENLARGED from, second, that bit doesn't even look like the
hair on other photos of JFK's head, and third, if they had a real photo of
the bullet hole in the BOH there would have been NO REASON to have used
the Dox Drawing to show the bullet hole....unless of course, it didn't
show in other photos. I seriously doubt the photo you were convinced was
JFK's scalp, has anything to do with JFK. Once I saw what they were
willing to do to fake things in the HSCA, I believe there was nothing they
weren't capable of doing.
Chris
This is a new low even for you. There is only one color photo of the BOH
and it has a ruler in it. The closeup is a section of that photo, and you
can look at the one made public and the one enlarged in the HSCA and match
then detail for detail to the limit of resolution of the public one. (You
think the HCSA would use a different photo and that nobody would have
noticed?)
First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on. It's clear that the drawings were copied from
the real photo, but had a bullet hole added, but the real kicker is that
the HSCA admitted that they used a drawing in place of the real photo.
"(See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President's head.)" HSCA Vol.
7, Page 103
Found under the drawing on page 104
"Figure 13. -- Drawing depicting the posterior head wound."
In both cases above the drawing is admitted to be such by the HSCA.
Post by Steve BH
Of course the HSCA had a better and first generation copy, but that's all.
If we could post photos in this forum I'd post them side by side (the
color BOH ruler photo leaked during the HCSA hearings, and the HSCA's
published blowup of it) and rub your nose in this, so everybody here could
see how totally NUTS you really are.
Careful whose nose you rub. You might find your own rubbed raw in the
truth noted above by the HSCA themselves.
Now do you ant to try again to answer my question? Why would the HSCA
replace a photo with a drawing of the same photo?
Oh! Another bit of information, Humes during testimony spoke about the
'red spot' that has been depicted in the color photo we've been talking
about. It's the one that the HSCA wants us to believe is the entry wound
for a bullet. Humes, who we know was right up on top of the wound in
"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
So you see, the red spot you and the HSCA think is a bullet entrance,
was not anything of the kind.
Chris
" First, for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the drawing on page
105, figure 14 is an ENLARGEMENT of the previous page drawing by Ida Dox
(figure 13). Now if you can bring yourself to admit that the drawings on
both pages 104-105 are of the Ida Dox drawing from the autopsy photo of
the BOH, we can move on."

No, we can't. Figs. 14 and 15 are enlargements of two spots of the same
photo, not drawing, and are clearly labeled and discussed as such.


https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf

See p. 105 fig 14.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-07 15:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.  When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s]
...who [were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around.
Forensic pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far
larger now than it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have
called Russell Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come
in to consult, if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they
didn't call him until after they'd already started and realized they
were in over their heads.
Yes, there were. Many. One of them was a guy named Cyril Wecht.
He actually did real, actual, legal autopsies.
Do you know EXACTLY when they called Fink? Did he have to fly in from
Switzerland or was he local and drove over in 10 minutes?
claviger
2018-08-08 23:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.  When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s]
...who [were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around.
Forensic pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far
larger now than it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could
have called Russell Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and
had him come in to consult, if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck,
and they didn't call him until after they'd already started and realized
they were in over their heads.
My understanding is Humes called before the body arrived,
but Finckwas 30 minutes late.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, there were. Many. One of them was a guy named Cyril Wecht.
He actually did real, actual, legal autopsies.
Do you know EXACTLY when they called Fink? Did he have to fly in from
Switzerland or was he local and drove over in 10 minutes?
Did you know Dr Earl Rose was asked to fly up to DC but declined?
Mitch Todd
2018-08-09 23:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.?? When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s]
...who [were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around.
Forensic pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far
larger now than it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could
have called Russell Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and
had him come in to consult, if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck,
and they didn't call him until after they'd already started and realized
they were in over their heads.
My understanding is Humes called before the body arrived,
but Finck was 30 minutes late.
This is Finck to Blumberg, specifically as to when he
was called, and when he arrived:

"Commander Humes, MC, USN, Director of Laboratories, Naval Medical School,
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, called me at home by
telephone on 22 Nov 1963, 2000 hours. He told me to go immediately to the
Naval Hospital. Brigadier General Blumberg, MC, USA, Director of the Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D. C., had given my name.

"I arrived at the Naval Hospital at 2030 hours. I saw a helicopter on the
ground. A seaman escorted me to the autopsy room, guarded outside by
military personnel and inside by Agents of the U. S. Secret Service. Rear
Admiral Galloway, Commanding the Naval Center, Cdr Humes and Cdr Boswell,
MC; USN, Chief of Pathology, showed me the wounds in the President's head.
The brain, the heart and the lungs had been removed before my arrival. X
ray films of the head and chest had been taken.

"Also present in the autopsy room were : Rear Admiral Kenney, Surgeon
General of the Navy; Rear Admiral Burkley, White House Physician; one Army
Major General; a Brigadier General, Air Force Aid to the President; Capt
Stover, MC, USN, Commanding the Naval Medical School; Capt Osborne, MC,
USN, Chief of Surgery; Cdr Ebersole, MC, USN, a radiologist; a Navy
photographer, Navy officers and enlisted men; Agents of the U. S. Secret
Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, there were. Many. One of them was a guy named Cyril Wecht.
He actually did real, actual, legal autopsies.
Do you know EXACTLY when they called Fink? Did he have to fly in from
Switzerland or was he local and drove over in 10 minutes?
Did you know Dr Earl Rose was asked to fly up to DC but declined?
Officially, he said he already had one other autopsy to perform
with Tippit. I wonder if he figured it would be little use, and
that he wouldn't have enough control over the proceedings.
claviger
2018-08-10 20:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind.?? When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s]
...who [were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around.
Forensic pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far
larger now than it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could
have called Russell Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and
had him come in to consult, if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck,
and they didn't call him until after they'd already started and realized
they were in over their heads.
My understanding is Humes called before the body arrived,
but Finck was 30 minutes late.
This is Finck to Blumberg, specifically as to when he
"Commander Humes, MC, USN, Director of Laboratories, Naval Medical School,
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, called me at home by
telephone on 22 Nov 1963, 2000 hours. He told me to go immediately to the
Naval Hospital. Brigadier General Blumberg, MC, USA, Director of the Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D. C., had given my name.
"I arrived at the Naval Hospital at 2030 hours. I saw a helicopter on the
ground. A seaman escorted me to the autopsy room, guarded outside by
military personnel and inside by Agents of the U. S. Secret Service. Rear
Admiral Galloway, Commanding the Naval Center, Cdr Humes and Cdr Boswell,
MC; USN, Chief of Pathology, showed me the wounds in the President's head.
The brain, the heart and the lungs had been removed before my arrival. X
ray films of the head and chest had been taken.
"Also present in the autopsy room were : Rear Admiral Kenney, Surgeon
General of the Navy; Rear Admiral Burkley, White House Physician; one Army
Major General; a Brigadier General, Air Force Aid to the President; Capt
Stover, MC, USN, Commanding the Naval Medical School; Capt Osborne, MC,
USN, Chief of Surgery; Cdr Ebersole, MC, USN, a radiologist; a Navy
photographer, Navy officers and enlisted men; Agents of the U. S. Secret
Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, there were. Many. One of them was a guy named Cyril Wecht.
He actually did real, actual, legal autopsies.
Do you know EXACTLY when they called Fink? Did he have to fly in from
Switzerland or was he local and drove over in 10 minutes?
Did you know Dr Earl Rose was asked to fly up to DC but declined?
Officially, he said he already had one other autopsy to perform
with Tippit. I wonder if he figured it would be little use, and
that he wouldn't have enough control over the proceedings.
That is an excellent point. When I first read Dr Rose was offered a seat
on one of the returning aircraft to be at the autopsy I was surprised and
disappointed he did not accept. My reaction was he had a duty as a US
citizen to cooperate and accept that request, and by so doing be in legal
compliance with State Law as well. Then I remembered how aggressive the
SSA treated him at the hospital. He might've been concerned about more
intimidation when he arrived in DC or lack of cooperation from the
military doctors.
mainframetech
2018-08-08 06:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
WRONG once again! I have NOT accused any medical panel of anything,
and certainly not part of any "cover up". This is more of your
disinformation you need to spread to keep the cover up of the WCR failure
quiet. They had to get the body out of Dallas and to a military hospital
for the autopsy, where they could control the result. At Parkland, with
Earl Rose doing the autopsy, they would be sunk because the truth would
come out that it was NOT a 'lone nut' killer, it was a conspiracy with
more than one shooter.

By having Rose on a medical panel later, they had all their ducks in a
row as to the evidence they were going to allow the panels to see, that
would force their decision to be a 'lone nut' from above and behind. He
saw only what the panels were allowed to see, and it seems possible that
hey even fed them the Ida Dox drawings to convince them of thing s like
bullet hole in the BOH, which were not in the photos, only in the
drawings.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
WRONG once again! I have NOT accused any medical panel of anything,
and certainly not part of any "cover up".
You have at various times accused them of not looking closely at the
evidence to deliberately falsifying their findings. That would mean they
were either incompetent or complicit.
Post by mainframetech
This is more of your
disinformation you need to spread to keep the cover up of the WCR failure
quiet. They had to get the body out of Dallas and to a military hospital
for the autopsy, where they could control the result. At Parkland, with
Earl Rose doing the autopsy, they would be sunk because the truth would
come out that it was NOT a 'lone nut' killer, it was a conspiracy with
more than one shooter.
You have imagined all of this. You have no evidence for any of it.
Post by mainframetech
By having Rose on a medical panel later, they had all their ducks in a
row as to the evidence they were going to allow the panels to see, that
would force their decision to be a 'lone nut' from above and behind. He
saw only what the panels were allowed to see, and it seems possible that
hey even fed them the Ida Dox drawings to convince them of thing s like
bullet hole in the BOH, which were not in the photos, only in the
drawings.
Your claim that they based their findings on the Ida Dox drawing rather
than all the photos and x-rays they had available to them ranks in the top
five of the most ludicrous things you have ever proposed.
mainframetech
2018-08-11 22:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
WRONG once again! I have NOT accused any medical panel of anything,
and certainly not part of any "cover up".
You have at various times accused them of not looking closely at the
evidence to deliberately falsifying their findings. That would mean they
were either incompetent or complicit.
I have indeed suggested that they didn't ENLARGE the photo of the
forehead bullet hole, but NEVER have I EVER accused the medical panels of
falsifying evidence. Never. I have always said that they were
manipulated or force fed info.

Chris
claviger
2018-08-13 05:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
I have indeed suggested that they didn't ENLARGE the photo of the
forehead bullet hole, but NEVER have I EVER accused the medical panels of
falsifying evidence. Never. I have always said that they were
manipulated or force fed info.
Chris
You do realize FBI and SSA were there to observe the autopsy.
Were they given orders to not pay attention to what was going
on right in front of them?
mainframetech
2018-08-15 00:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I have indeed suggested that they didn't ENLARGE the photo of the
forehead bullet hole, but NEVER have I EVER accused the medical panels of
falsifying evidence. Never. I have always said that they were
manipulated or force fed info.
Chris
You do realize FBI and SSA were there to observe the autopsy.
Were they given orders to not pay attention to what was going
on right in front of them?
What's your point?

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-13 05:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
WRONG once again! I have NOT accused any medical panel of anything,
and certainly not part of any "cover up".
You have at various times accused them of not looking closely at the
evidence to deliberately falsifying their findings. That would mean they
were either incompetent or complicit.
I have indeed suggested that they didn't ENLARGE the photo of the
forehead bullet hole, but NEVER have I EVER accused the medical panels of
falsifying evidence. Never. I have always said that they were
manipulated or force fed info.
That's no less ridiculous.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 19:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
WRONG once again! I have NOT accused any medical panel of anything,
and certainly not part of any "cover up".
You have at various times accused them of not looking closely at the
evidence to deliberately falsifying their findings. That would mean they
were either incompetent or complicit.
Post by mainframetech
This is more of your
disinformation you need to spread to keep the cover up of the WCR failure
quiet. They had to get the body out of Dallas and to a military hospital
for the autopsy, where they could control the result. At Parkland, with
Earl Rose doing the autopsy, they would be sunk because the truth would
come out that it was NOT a 'lone nut' killer, it was a conspiracy with
more than one shooter.
You have imagined all of this. You have no evidence for any of it.
He's THINKING IT THROUGH!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By having Rose on a medical panel later, they had all their ducks in a
row as to the evidence they were going to allow the panels to see, that
would force their decision to be a 'lone nut' from above and behind. He
saw only what the panels were allowed to see, and it seems possible that
hey even fed them the Ida Dox drawings to convince them of thing s like
bullet hole in the BOH, which were not in the photos, only in the
drawings.
Your claim that they based their findings on the Ida Dox drawing rather
than all the photos and x-rays they had available to them ranks in the top
five of the most ludicrous things you have ever proposed.
The Ida Dox drawings were only made for publishing to the public.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 16:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Earl Rose was on the HSCA panel that concurred with the original autopsy
findings that JFK was shot twice from behind. You've accused that panel of
being part of the cover up so if "they" had Earl Rose on board, why
wouldn't "they" just have him do the autopsy in Dallas.
You mean the one that criticized the incompetence of the autopsy doctors?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-09 16:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
Chris
Not many with a military rifle.
Mitch Todd
2018-08-09 23:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
At that time, I don't think there were any "private pathologist[s] ...who
[were] more familiar with gunshot wounds" running around. Forensic
pathology isn't a very big field even today, and it's far larger now than
it was in 1963. Had they known better, they could have called Russell
Fisher, who was CME of nearby Baltimore, and had him come in to consult,
if nothing else. As it was, they got Finck, and they didn't call him until
after they'd already started and realized they were in over their heads.
Amazing how the LNs just completely ignore Earl Rose, the Medical
Examiner of Dallas, whose job it was to do autopsies, especially in cases
of gunshot killings. He fought with the SS to leave the body in Dallas so
he could do the autopsy. And there were plenty of gunshot cases in Dallas
for him to have gained experience by that time.
I didn't forget Rose. The context of the post I replied to is
the DC area. I don't think he was hanging his shingle round
those parts at the time. I've already addressed him in another
post in this thread.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-07 03:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
The autopsy should have been done in Dallas, by law.
But Jackie wouldn't leave Dallas without Jack, and LBJ wouldn't leave
without Jackie.
Post by Mark
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-07 03:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Can you say "Monday Morning Quarterback", Mark?

How about "Back seat driver"?

Okay, now seriously...

There is nothing we can do about the past, is there?

How about the present and the future? Are you aware of some historical
developments (Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit?) that are happening as we
speak, some initiated in this NG and all over forumland?

(1) Either Urban Legend or actual policy had it that Ted Kennedy, in a
"Gift of Deed" in the late 1960s made a secret deal with the National
Archives: Only low quality, poor resolution, analog copies of the two
X-rays most famous in history would be allowed outside the premises. Well,
that was then, JFK Numbers is now.

(2) As soon as those two autopsy X-rays are digitized (one
anterior/posterior, another lateral) plus another radiograph, pre-mortem,
provided by the victim's dentist, located in the JFK Library in Boston, a
copy (DICOM files of the utmost accuracy) will be sent to a team of
scientists in Berlin:

http://www.zib.de/projects/3d-reconstruction-anatomical-structures-2d-x-ray-images

Another historic first.

(3) They will proceed to study the images and will issue their
determination (subject to peer review and contrasting findings by the
world top specialists on that field) about the legitimacy of the bone
material (the much debated spot). Unlike previous "scientific" studies,
every single file will be placed on public Internet servers. We are giving
them to their rightful owners: The People.

More history being made, and all began in this NG and other forums.

(4) A 3D projection of the cranium (later, perhaps, cerebrum matter) will
be generated.

Man, this looks like the History Channel! :-)

(5) Such model will be donated to the National Archives. They already gave
the pre-approval to my idea, pending the Kennedy's.

3D Computer Model donation? Completely unprecedented.

(6) The esteemed Notable Doctors of the LN persuasion will be invited to
participate a co-sign the petitions, declarations, etc.

Another one for the books.

Question: Is there any possible, logical reason for you Mark, David Von
Pein, Big Dog, Jason, Steve Galbraith ... all the way to professor McAdams
NOT to support those initiatives? Perhaps you have scientists that you
trust, from the best schools and centers of research, and would like to
get a copy (I will be glad to provide it, from my not-too-deep pocket),
for further scientific scrutiny?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
ramon (at) jfknumbers.org
mainframetech
2018-08-07 04:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Medical Examiner Earl Rose of Dallas wanted to handle the autopsy,
but the body was stolen along with the limousine away from Dallas. Rose
was supposed to do the autopsy by law. Burkley wanted a military hospital
for the autopsy too.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Medical Examiner Earl Rose of Dallas wanted to handle the autopsy,
but the body was stolen along with the limousine away from Dallas. Rose
was supposed to do the autopsy by law. Burkley wanted a military hospital
for the autopsy too.
Rose was on the HSCA review panel and concurred with the original finding
that JFK was hit by two bullets fired from above and behind him.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Medical Examiner Earl Rose of Dallas wanted to handle the autopsy,
but the body was stolen along with the limousine away from Dallas. Rose
was supposed to do the autopsy by law. Burkley wanted a military hospital
for the autopsy too.
Rose was on the HSCA review panel and concurred with the original finding
that JFK was hit by two bullets fired from above and behind him.
By that time all the necessary alterations were done, and Rose never
got a solid look at the body when it was at Parkland. He was forced to
accept the limited evidence that they showed him. I wonder if they showed
him the phony Dox drawing of the BOH with the bullet hole that was missing
from the real photo.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Medical Examiner Earl Rose of Dallas wanted to handle the autopsy,
but the body was stolen along with the limousine away from Dallas. Rose
was supposed to do the autopsy by law. Burkley wanted a military hospital
for the autopsy too.
Rose was on the HSCA review panel and concurred with the original finding
that JFK was hit by two bullets fired from above and behind him.
By that time all the necessary alterations were done, and Rose never
got a solid look at the body when it was at Parkland. He was forced to
accept the limited evidence that they showed him.
Tell us how you know the evidence he was shown was "limited". Tell us who
"they" were.
Post by mainframetech
I wonder if they showed
him the phony Dox drawing of the BOH with the bullet hole that was missing
from the real photo.
You wonder about lots of silly things.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 19:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Medical Examiner Earl Rose of Dallas wanted to handle the autopsy,
but the body was stolen along with the limousine away from Dallas. Rose
was supposed to do the autopsy by law. Burkley wanted a military hospital
for the autopsy too.
Rose was on the HSCA review panel and concurred with the original finding
that JFK was hit by two bullets fired from above and behind him.
By that time all the necessary alterations were done, and Rose never
got a solid look at the body when it was at Parkland. He was forced to
accept the limited evidence that they showed him.
Tell us how you know the evidence he was shown was "limited". Tell us who
"they" were.
Post by mainframetech
I wonder if they showed
him the phony Dox drawing of the BOH with the bullet hole that was missing
from the real photo.
You wonder about lots of silly things.
Somebody has to since you WC defenders never question anything.
You probably still believe the Rydberg drawings and the bullet hole in
the hairline fairytale.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 16:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Medical Examiner Earl Rose of Dallas wanted to handle the autopsy,
but the body was stolen along with the limousine away from Dallas. Rose
was supposed to do the autopsy by law. Burkley wanted a military hospital
for the autopsy too.
Rose was on the HSCA review panel and concurred with the original finding
that JFK was hit by two bullets fired from above and behind him.
Wonderfulm but you don't care exactly where the wounds were. Just
SOMEWHERE on the torso and SOMEWHERE on the head.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 21:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
BD, I starting to come around to your thought that the body should have
been taken to a private pathologist in Washington who was more familiar
with gunshot wounds. I just don't know how, in their state of mind, they
would have thought of that or who it would have been. Maybe Burkley on
AF-1 should have asked for help with that from the WH Situation Room.
But I think Burkley had adrenal gland "insufficiency" on his mind. When
you're talking about the Kennedys, things aren't always what they seem.
Mark
Burkley was not interested in doing a legal autopsy.
His ONLY job was to to prevent any mention of
Addison's Disease.
Why do you think he always brought vials of cortisone on all the trips?
Lattimer even speculated that just the back wound would have been fatal
due to JFK's Addison's Disease.


What I find amazing is that JFK forgave Connally for having attacked him
on the Addison's Disease when Connally was backing LBJ against JFK for
the nomination.
Incidentally Nixon was starting his dirty tricks early in the 1960
campaign by hiring operatives (unnamed) to break into the doctors
offices to copy JFK's medical records that mentioned the Addison's Disease.

I suspect that likewise Trump started his dirty tricks the moment he was
born.
Loading...