Discussion:
A simple question for Chris/mainframetech
(too old to reply)
bigdog
2017-08-05 03:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.

All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
mainframetech
2017-08-06 04:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.

I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
repetition:

First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.

Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
assisted at up to 50-60 autopsies:

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

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

Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.

Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
Jenkins:

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

From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.

So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.

O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up th Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.

The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.

Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.

Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.


Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-06 22:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.
Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.
So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.
O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up th Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.
The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.
Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.
You most certainly are repeating the OPINIONS of these two technicians. It
is their OPINION they saw proof the bullet never penetrated beyond the
pleura. It was their OPINION that when the probe couldn't be passed easily
through the bullet track that was proof the bullet stopped after
penetrating only a few inches. There are a number of reasons why these
opinions are invalid. They've been explained to you and you continue to
ignore the explanations. These aren't my reasons or opinions. They were
explained by Finck during his Clay Shaw testimony. Further, Jenkins
recalled almost three decades later that the bruise was in the middle lobe
of the lung. For some silly reason you find that more compelling the
contemporaneous opinion stated in the autopsy report and signed by all
three pathologists that the bruise was on the upper tip of the pleura and
the lung. Given how high the bullet entered JFK's back, how the hell did
it descend to the middle lobe of his lung. As with everything else you
have argued, that makes no sense.
Post by mainframetech
Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.
Do you wonder why they call it a short shot? Let me clue you in on that.
In the extremely rare circumstance when an underpowered bullet is fired,
it falls well short of the target. It lacks the velocity to reach the
intended target before gravity has brought it down well short of the
target.

Despite the fact the opinions expressed by the two technicians conflict
with the opinions of the qualified pathologists on the team, the findings
of every review panel, the body of evidence, and the laws of physics, you
continue to cling to them like a security blanket because it is all you
have going for you. It is this sort of reasoning that will prevent you
from every learning the truth of the assassination of JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.
As long as you keep repeating the nonsense, I will continue to point out
why it is nonsense.
mainframetech
2017-08-08 20:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.
Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.
So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.
O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up the Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.
The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.
Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.
You most certainly are repeating the OPINIONS of these two technicians. It
is their OPINION they saw proof the bullet never penetrated beyond the
pleura.
WRONG! They weren't talking about their opinions of what they saw, they
actually saw the things they stated they saw. That little device won't
get you anywhere. It's squirming to escape on your part.
Post by bigdog
It was their OPINION that when the probe couldn't be passed easily
through the bullet track that was proof the bullet stopped after
penetrating only a few inches.
WRONG! The point of my copying the statement was not to get the
OPINION of O'Connor or Jenkins, but to get what they SAW and who else they
saw that viewed the proof in the body.
Post by bigdog
There are a number of reasons why these
opinions are invalid. They've been explained to you and you continue to
ignore the explanations. These aren't my reasons or opinions.
Once again, OPINIOPNS AR NOT WHAT WE ARE AFTER. WE'RE AFTER THE SIGHTS
SEEN BY THE MEN AND THE DOCTORS THEY ALSO SAW THAT VIEWED THE PROOF.
There was not a situation where there was argument about what was seen,
only what was seen. You can stop trying to get your ridiculous
imagination out of it.
Post by bigdog
They were
explained by Finck during his Clay Shaw testimony. Further, Jenkins
recalled almost three decades later that the bruise was in the middle lobe
of the lung. For some silly reason you find that more compelling the
contemporaneous opinion stated in the autopsy report and signed by all
three pathologists that the bruise was on the upper tip of the pleura and
the lung.
Try not to be too stupid. I stated that there was a disagreement, and
it was between the AR and Jenkins. However, the size of the bruise
answers all we need to prove that the bullet had to stop at the pleura.
The fact that Humes and the others signed a statement that was full of
phony info about the condition of the body doesn't help anything and
actually was a thorn in the side of those trying to legitimately to
determine the cause of death.
Post by bigdog
Given how high the bullet entered JFK's back, how the hell did
it descend to the middle lobe of his lung. As with everything else you
have argued, that makes no sense.
Well, you might want to check the actual location of the back wound.
It looks to be lower than anyone was talking about. That's if the
'leaked' photos are valid. Either way, the fact that the size of the
bruise was a circle 2 inches in diameter tells the tale.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.
Do you wonder why they call it a short shot? Let me clue you in on that.
In the extremely rare circumstance when an underpowered bullet is fired,
it falls well short of the target. It lacks the velocity to reach the
intended target before gravity has brought it down well short of the
target.
You seem to once again have forgotten that if that bullet were fire
from the TSBD, it was fired DOWNWARD, and it didn't have far to travel.
If it was aimed at the head, and hit down the back, I'd say it had lost
some of its energy and gravity took it down. But there ar also other
reasons for the bullet to have been out of energy when it hit the back.
We can argue about it, but it all fits nicely with a 'short shot' no mater
how it was caused.
Post by bigdog
Despite the fact the opinions expressed by the two technicians conflict
with the opinions of the qualified pathologists on the team, the findings
of every review panel, the body of evidence, and the laws of physics, you
continue to cling to them like a security blanket because it is all you
have going for you. It is this sort of reasoning that will prevent you
from every learning the truth of the assassination of JFK.
WRONG! The opinions of the Technologists do NOT differ from the words
of the prosectors until AFTER the autopsy and Humes wrote the AR to the
orders he was given. Note that the prosectors ALL said earlier on that
"There was NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.
As long as you keep repeating the nonsense, I will continue to point out
why it is nonsense.
You have forgotten again that I'm only repeating to correct your
continued errors.

But you are at least correct that there is a lot of repetition in this
thread, so I'll get out of it. You have it all, say all your worst.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-09 12:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies. We have very good reason to believe it would be none or few. It
was a military hospital during a time when our casualties in Vietnam were
still quite low and it is not normal procedure to perform autopsies on
servicemen KIA. Unless there was a gunshot murder on a military base, the
military would not have jurisdiction and therefore any gunshot homicides
would end up being handled by civilian medical examiners. I think it is
safe to say O'Connor had little or no experience with autopsies performed
on gunshot victims. My bet would be it was zero.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.
Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.
So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.
O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up the Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.
The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.
Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.
You most certainly are repeating the OPINIONS of these two technicians. It
is their OPINION they saw proof the bullet never penetrated beyond the
pleura.
WRONG! They weren't talking about their opinions of what they saw, they
actually saw the things they stated they saw.
The three pathologists were looking at the same body and rendered opinions
that differed from those of the techies. The difference of course is that
the pathologists were qualified to make those judgements and the techies
were not.
Post by mainframetech
That little device won't
get you anywhere. It's squirming to escape on your part.
You are the one who puts more faith in the opinions of the techies than
the pathologists. It is you who is doing the squirming because of the
ridiculous position you have staked out.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It was their OPINION that when the probe couldn't be passed easily
through the bullet track that was proof the bullet stopped after
penetrating only a few inches.
WRONG! The point of my copying the statement was not to get the
OPINION of O'Connor or Jenkins, but to get what they SAW and who else they
saw that viewed the proof in the body.
What they saw was not proof of a bullet stopping an inch into the body
which is ludicrous to begin with.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There are a number of reasons why these
opinions are invalid. They've been explained to you and you continue to
ignore the explanations. These aren't my reasons or opinions.
Once again, OPINIOPNS AR NOT WHAT WE ARE AFTER.
Yet you continue to cite the opinions of the techies as if they mean
something.
Post by mainframetech
WE'RE AFTER THE SIGHTS
SEEN BY THE MEN AND THE DOCTORS THEY ALSO SAW THAT VIEWED THE PROOF.
The techies can tell us what they saw. They are not qualified to say what
that proves because they lack training or experience to do that.
Post by mainframetech
There was not a situation where there was argument about what was seen,
only what was seen.
You have become so confused your refuted yourself within the same
sentence.
Post by mainframetech
You can stop trying to get your ridiculous
imagination out of it.
I don't need to imagine anything. I just need to accept the unanimous
opinions of the original three pathologists and every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed their work. You are forced to refute those based
solely on the opinions of the techies.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They were
explained by Finck during his Clay Shaw testimony. Further, Jenkins
recalled almost three decades later that the bruise was in the middle lobe
of the lung. For some silly reason you find that more compelling the
contemporaneous opinion stated in the autopsy report and signed by all
three pathologists that the bruise was on the upper tip of the pleura and
the lung.
Try not to be too stupid. I stated that there was a disagreement, and
it was between the AR and Jenkins.
And of course you put more faith in Jenkins even though he was far less
qualified than the pathologists and they issued their report within days
while Jenkins testified three decades later.
Post by mainframetech
However, the size of the bruise
answers all we need to prove that the bullet had to stop at the pleura.
Here's where you insert your opinion. You can't find a competent medical
examiner who agrees with your assessment of what the bruise proves.
Post by mainframetech
The fact that Humes and the others signed a statement that was full of
phony info about the condition of the body doesn't help anything and
actually was a thorn in the side of those trying to legitimately to
determine the cause of death.
The only reason you have given for it being phony is because it didn't
match what the techies said decades later and for some reason you find the
latter more compelling.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Given how high the bullet entered JFK's back, how the hell did
it descend to the middle lobe of his lung. As with everything else you
have argued, that makes no sense.
Well, you might want to check the actual location of the back wound.
It looks to be lower than anyone was talking about.
Oh, so after telling us for months that the opinions of the review panels
don't matter because they didn't see the body, you are going to tell us
your opinion of where the back wound was does matter. Another of your
double standards.
Post by mainframetech
That's if the
'leaked' photos are valid. Either way, the fact that the size of the
bruise was a circle 2 inches in diameter tells the tale.
Again, your opinion not shared by any qualified medical examiner.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.
Do you wonder why they call it a short shot? Let me clue you in on that.
In the extremely rare circumstance when an underpowered bullet is fired,
it falls well short of the target. It lacks the velocity to reach the
intended target before gravity has brought it down well short of the
target.
You seem to once again have forgotten that if that bullet were fire
from the TSBD, it was fired DOWNWARD, and it didn't have far to travel.
If it was aimed at the head, and hit down the back, I'd say it had lost
some of its energy and gravity took it down.
A bullet as underpowered as what you propose would drop far more from the
head to the upper back. Jack Ruby's bullet which had about half the
velocity of Oswald's rifle still passed almost completely through Oswald's
body. Your theory requires a bullet traveling considerably slower than
that which means it would drop considerable more.
Post by mainframetech
But there ar also other
reasons for the bullet to have been out of energy when it hit the back.
We can argue about it, but it all fits nicely with a 'short shot' no mater
how it was caused.
None of the reasons you have given to date make sense nor is there any
evidence to support them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Despite the fact the opinions expressed by the two technicians conflict
with the opinions of the qualified pathologists on the team, the findings
of every review panel, the body of evidence, and the laws of physics, you
continue to cling to them like a security blanket because it is all you
have going for you. It is this sort of reasoning that will prevent you
from every learning the truth of the assassination of JFK.
WRONG! The opinions of the Technologists do NOT differ from the words
of the prosectors until AFTER the autopsy and Humes wrote the AR to the
orders he was given. Note that the prosectors ALL said earlier on that
"There was NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK.
The "no exit" comment was made early on before the body had been opened up
and before they realized there was a bullet hole in the throat. At no time
after eviscerating the body did any of the pathologists express the
opinion that there was no exit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.
As long as you keep repeating the nonsense, I will continue to point out
why it is nonsense.
You have forgotten again that I'm only repeating to correct your
continued errors.
But you are at least correct that there is a lot of repetition in this
thread, so I'll get out of it. You have it all, say all your worst.
You're getting out of it? Again?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 22:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies. We have very good reason to believe it would be none or few. It
was a military hospital during a time when our casualties in Vietnam were
still quite low and it is not normal procedure to perform autopsies on
servicemen KIA. Unless there was a gunshot murder on a military base, the
military would not have jurisdiction and therefore any gunshot homicides
would end up being handled by civilian medical examiners. I think it is
safe to say O'Connor had little or no experience with autopsies performed
on gunshot victims. My bet would be it was zero.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.
Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.
So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.
O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up the Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.
The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.
Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.
You most certainly are repeating the OPINIONS of these two technicians. It
is their OPINION they saw proof the bullet never penetrated beyond the
pleura.
WRONG! They weren't talking about their opinions of what they saw, they
actually saw the things they stated they saw.
The three pathologists were looking at the same body and rendered opinions
that differed from those of the techies. The difference of course is that
the pathologists were qualified to make those judgements and the techies
were not.
Post by mainframetech
That little device won't
get you anywhere. It's squirming to escape on your part.
You are the one who puts more faith in the opinions of the techies than
the pathologists. It is you who is doing the squirming because of the
ridiculous position you have staked out.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It was their OPINION that when the probe couldn't be passed easily
through the bullet track that was proof the bullet stopped after
penetrating only a few inches.
WRONG! The point of my copying the statement was not to get the
OPINION of O'Connor or Jenkins, but to get what they SAW and who else they
saw that viewed the proof in the body.
What they saw was not proof of a bullet stopping an inch into the body
which is ludicrous to begin with.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
There are a number of reasons why these
opinions are invalid. They've been explained to you and you continue to
ignore the explanations. These aren't my reasons or opinions.
Once again, OPINIOPNS AR NOT WHAT WE ARE AFTER.
Yet you continue to cite the opinions of the techies as if they mean
something.
Post by mainframetech
WE'RE AFTER THE SIGHTS
SEEN BY THE MEN AND THE DOCTORS THEY ALSO SAW THAT VIEWED THE PROOF.
The techies can tell us what they saw. They are not qualified to say what
that proves because they lack training or experience to do that.
Post by mainframetech
There was not a situation where there was argument about what was seen,
only what was seen.
You have become so confused your refuted yourself within the same
sentence.
Post by mainframetech
You can stop trying to get your ridiculous
imagination out of it.
I don't need to imagine anything. I just need to accept the unanimous
opinions of the original three pathologists and every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed their work. You are forced to refute those based
solely on the opinions of the techies.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They were
explained by Finck during his Clay Shaw testimony. Further, Jenkins
recalled almost three decades later that the bruise was in the middle lobe
of the lung. For some silly reason you find that more compelling the
contemporaneous opinion stated in the autopsy report and signed by all
three pathologists that the bruise was on the upper tip of the pleura and
the lung.
Try not to be too stupid. I stated that there was a disagreement, and
it was between the AR and Jenkins.
And of course you put more faith in Jenkins even though he was far less
qualified than the pathologists and they issued their report within days
while Jenkins testified three decades later.
Post by mainframetech
However, the size of the bruise
answers all we need to prove that the bullet had to stop at the pleura.
Here's where you insert your opinion. You can't find a competent medical
examiner who agrees with your assessment of what the bruise proves.
Post by mainframetech
The fact that Humes and the others signed a statement that was full of
phony info about the condition of the body doesn't help anything and
actually was a thorn in the side of those trying to legitimately to
determine the cause of death.
The only reason you have given for it being phony is because it didn't
match what the techies said decades later and for some reason you find the
latter more compelling.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Given how high the bullet entered JFK's back, how the hell did
it descend to the middle lobe of his lung. As with everything else you
have argued, that makes no sense.
Well, you might want to check the actual location of the back wound.
It looks to be lower than anyone was talking about.
Oh, so after telling us for months that the opinions of the review panels
don't matter because they didn't see the body, you are going to tell us
your opinion of where the back wound was does matter. Another of your
double standards.
Post by mainframetech
That's if the
'leaked' photos are valid. Either way, the fact that the size of the
bruise was a circle 2 inches in diameter tells the tale.
Again, your opinion not shared by any qualified medical examiner.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.
Do you wonder why they call it a short shot? Let me clue you in on that.
In the extremely rare circumstance when an underpowered bullet is fired,
it falls well short of the target. It lacks the velocity to reach the
intended target before gravity has brought it down well short of the
target.
You seem to once again have forgotten that if that bullet were fire
from the TSBD, it was fired DOWNWARD, and it didn't have far to travel.
If it was aimed at the head, and hit down the back, I'd say it had lost
some of its energy and gravity took it down.
A bullet as underpowered as what you propose would drop far more from the
head to the upper back. Jack Ruby's bullet which had about half the
velocity of Oswald's rifle still passed almost completely through Oswald's
body. Your theory requires a bullet traveling considerably slower than
that which means it would drop considerable more.
What type of bullet?
Some bullets are so underpowered that that do not go through the body.
Like the one that Ruby shot into Oswald. That stopped on the underside
of the skin on the opposite side from the entrance. In one case a .45
was stoppded by a vertebra. In one case a woman was shot in the face and
spit out the bullet. You need to read Milton Helpern. He speculated that
a bullet hit JFK and fell out into his clothing.
But you are correct that the kook theory is physically impossible.
You can't get a Carcano bullet to go that slow. The last guy who tried
the experiment kept underloading the ammo to try to get a very slow
bullet. He could never get it slow enough and eventually he got it so
slow that it didn't exit the rifle and the rifle blew up in his hands.
Mythbusters can do it and has with different guns at very close range.
Not in the JFK assassination.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But there ar also other
reasons for the bullet to have been out of energy when it hit the back.
We can argue about it, but it all fits nicely with a 'short shot' no mater
how it was caused.
None of the reasons you have given to date make sense nor is there any
evidence to support them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Despite the fact the opinions expressed by the two technicians conflict
with the opinions of the qualified pathologists on the team, the findings
of every review panel, the body of evidence, and the laws of physics, you
continue to cling to them like a security blanket because it is all you
have going for you. It is this sort of reasoning that will prevent you
from every learning the truth of the assassination of JFK.
WRONG! The opinions of the Technologists do NOT differ from the words
of the prosectors until AFTER the autopsy and Humes wrote the AR to the
orders he was given. Note that the prosectors ALL said earlier on that
"There was NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK.
The "no exit" comment was made early on before the body had been opened up
and before they realized there was a bullet hole in the throat. At no time
after eviscerating the body did any of the pathologists express the
opinion that there was no exit.
Excuse me? You mean after Humes talked to Dr. Perry at Parkland who told
him about the throat wound. On the night of the autopsy the Humes theory
was that it was an Ice Bullet. If they had put that in the Warren Report
you would still believe this today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.
As long as you keep repeating the nonsense, I will continue to point out
why it is nonsense.
You have forgotten again that I'm only repeating to correct your
continued errors.
But you are at least correct that there is a lot of repetition in this
thread, so I'll get out of it. You have it all, say all your worst.
You're getting out of it? Again?
Yes, he always cries and runs away, what we call pulling a Harris.
mainframetech
2017-08-10 12:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies." However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung. This has been
exhaustively explained to you, but you don't listen very well. Because of
the size of the bruise, the bullet had to NOT be striking the "tip" of the
lung, and was at least an inch into the lung area, and therefore also the
pleura area as well. I'm tired of teaching you these things, and will
stop repeating this stuff just because you keep repeating your disbelief.
Post by bigdog
We have very good reason to believe it would be none or few. It
was a military hospital during a time when our casualties in Vietnam were
still quite low and it is not normal procedure to perform autopsies on
servicemen KIA. Unless there was a gunshot murder on a military base, the
military would not have jurisdiction and therefore any gunshot homicides
would end up being handled by civilian medical examiners. I think it is
safe to say O'Connor had little or no experience with autopsies performed
on gunshot victims. My bet would be it was zero.
WRONG! I see now that you have decided to become the guru of military
rules for "gunshot homicides". Were you a military lawyer, or officer
trained in these rules? Or are you as usual, pretending you know
something you don't really know for sure?

The rest of this is repetitive, and I've sworn off wiping behind your
ears, so I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-10 22:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious? Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track. Since these
20-somethings had little to no experience with autopsies on gunshot
victims, it seems rather foolish to rely on their judgement for anything
related to the autopsy. But expertise isn't what you care about. You are
only concerned with finding people who express opinions compatible with
your beliefs and you don't care if they are qualified to render those
judgements.
Post by mainframetech
This has been
exhaustively explained to you, but you don't listen very well.
I listen very well which is how I know the arguments you make are FUBAR.
You disregard what extremely qualified and experienced medical examiners
concluded based entirely on what a couple techies in their early 20s
concluded regarding what was likely their first autopsy of a gunshot
victim.
Post by mainframetech
Because of
the size of the bruise, the bullet had to NOT be striking the "tip" of the
lung, and was at least an inch into the lung area, and therefore also the
pleura area as well.
Probably the only thing sillier than your reliance on the 20-something
techies is when you throw your own opinions into the mix.
Post by mainframetech
I'm tired of teaching you these things, and will
stop repeating this stuff just because you keep repeating your disbelief.
That would be nice. You need some new material. The old shit ain't cutting
it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We have very good reason to believe it would be none or few. It
was a military hospital during a time when our casualties in Vietnam were
still quite low and it is not normal procedure to perform autopsies on
servicemen KIA. Unless there was a gunshot murder on a military base, the
military would not have jurisdiction and therefore any gunshot homicides
would end up being handled by civilian medical examiners. I think it is
safe to say O'Connor had little or no experience with autopsies performed
on gunshot victims. My bet would be it was zero.
WRONG! I see now that you have decided to become the guru of military
rules for "gunshot homicides". Were you a military lawyer, or officer
trained in these rules? Or are you as usual, pretending you know
something you don't really know for sure?
Sound's like a non-denial denial. I explained why it was unlikely that any
of the autopsies Jenkins and O'Connor participated in would have been for
gunshot victims and rather than address those arguments, you chose to try
to make this about me.
Post by mainframetech
The rest of this is repetitive, and I've sworn off wiping behind your
ears, so I'm outa here.
By my count, this is the fifth time you have declared you were exiting.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-11 16:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
You are always a Hypocrite no matter what the subject. You never would
complain that Humes and Boswell did not have experience with gunshot
wound.

O'Connor is not an expert witness. He is only useful for SEEING what was
happening at the autopsy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious? Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track. Since these
20-somethings had little to no experience with autopsies on gunshot
victims, it seems rather foolish to rely on their judgement for anything
related to the autopsy. But expertise isn't what you care about. You are
only concerned with finding people who express opinions compatible with
your beliefs and you don't care if they are qualified to render those
judgements.
Post by mainframetech
This has been
exhaustively explained to you, but you don't listen very well.
I listen very well which is how I know the arguments you make are FUBAR.
You disregard what extremely qualified and experienced medical examiners
concluded based entirely on what a couple techies in their early 20s
concluded regarding what was likely their first autopsy of a gunshot
victim.
Post by mainframetech
Because of
the size of the bruise, the bullet had to NOT be striking the "tip" of the
lung, and was at least an inch into the lung area, and therefore also the
pleura area as well.
Probably the only thing sillier than your reliance on the 20-something
techies is when you throw your own opinions into the mix.
Post by mainframetech
I'm tired of teaching you these things, and will
stop repeating this stuff just because you keep repeating your disbelief.
That would be nice. You need some new material. The old shit ain't cutting
it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We have very good reason to believe it would be none or few. It
was a military hospital during a time when our casualties in Vietnam were
still quite low and it is not normal procedure to perform autopsies on
servicemen KIA. Unless there was a gunshot murder on a military base, the
military would not have jurisdiction and therefore any gunshot homicides
would end up being handled by civilian medical examiners. I think it is
safe to say O'Connor had little or no experience with autopsies performed
on gunshot victims. My bet would be it was zero.
WRONG! I see now that you have decided to become the guru of military
rules for "gunshot homicides". Were you a military lawyer, or officer
trained in these rules? Or are you as usual, pretending you know
something you don't really know for sure?
Sound's like a non-denial denial. I explained why it was unlikely that any
of the autopsies Jenkins and O'Connor participated in would have been for
gunshot victims and rather than address those arguments, you chose to try
to make this about me.
Post by mainframetech
The rest of this is repetitive, and I've sworn off wiping behind your
ears, so I'm outa here.
By my count, this is the fifth time you have declared you were exiting.
mainframetech
2017-08-11 18:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious?
WRONG assumption! There is no proof that he was never involved in a
gunshot autopsy in the past.
Post by bigdog
Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track.
FALSE as usual! I'm not relying on his medical expertise for anything
but his ability to identify the parts of the body that we are involved
with in this discussion. And his experience is plenty for that purpose.
Post by bigdog
Since these
20-somethings had little to no experience with autopsies on gunshot
victims, it seems rather foolish to rely on their judgement for anything
related to the autopsy. But expertise isn't what you care about. You are
only concerned with finding people who express opinions compatible with
your beliefs and you don't care if they are qualified to render those
judgements.
WRONG! Now you've made an assumption that they had little or no
experience with gunshot autopsies, and first, you don't know that, and
second, I've shown that it doesn't matter.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This has been
exhaustively explained to you, but you don't listen very well.
I listen very well which is how I know the arguments you make are FUBAR.
You disregard what extremely qualified and experienced medical examiners
concluded based entirely on what a couple techies in their early 20s
concluded regarding what was likely their first autopsy of a gunshot
victim.
WRONG! Your opinion is of no use in this discussion. Supply proof of
what your trying to pretend is so.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Because of
the size of the bruise, the bullet had to NOT be striking the "tip" of the
lung, and was at least an inch into the lung area, and therefore also the
pleura area as well.
Probably the only thing sillier than your reliance on the 20-something
techies is when you throw your own opinions into the mix.
Repeat, I'm not relying on the medical expertise of the Technologists.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR SMALL HEAD!

Your repeating yourself for the nth time and I'm not interested, so
I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-12 15:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious?
WRONG assumption! There is no proof that he was never involved in a
gunshot autopsy in the past.
There is no proof that he ever was and lot's or reasons to believe he
wasn't and those reasons have been given to you. A military hospital would
be an unlikely place to perform a medico-legal autopsy on a murder victim.
It was a poor choice for where to do JFK's autopsy as well.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track.
FALSE as usual! I'm not relying on his medical expertise for anything
but his ability to identify the parts of the body that we are involved
with in this discussion. And his experience is plenty for that purpose.
So you think all that is necessary to be able to determine a bullet track
through a body is the ability to identify parts of the body. I guess when
I got that Visible Man kit for my 12th birthday (6 days after the
assassination) I would have been qualified too. If only I could have
received that kit a week earlier, I could have assisted at the autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since these
20-somethings had little to no experience with autopsies on gunshot
victims, it seems rather foolish to rely on their judgement for anything
related to the autopsy. But expertise isn't what you care about. You are
only concerned with finding people who express opinions compatible with
your beliefs and you don't care if they are qualified to render those
judgements.
WRONG! Now you've made an assumption that they had little or no
experience with gunshot autopsies, and first, you don't know that, and
second, I've shown that it doesn't matter.
Since you are the one relying on them having experience in that area, it
is up to you to establish that this wasn't their first autopsy involving a
gunshot victim. In lieu of that, it seems highly probably that it was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This has been
exhaustively explained to you, but you don't listen very well.
I listen very well which is how I know the arguments you make are FUBAR.
You disregard what extremely qualified and experienced medical examiners
concluded based entirely on what a couple techies in their early 20s
concluded regarding what was likely their first autopsy of a gunshot
victim.
WRONG! Your opinion is of no use in this discussion. Supply proof of
what your trying to pretend is so.
Again, it is you who is advancing the argument that the recollections of
the two techies establish that not only the original autopsy was
fraudulent but that the review panels were incompetent in their review of
that autopsy. It is therefore up to you to establish that those two
techies had some experience with gunshot victims prior to the evening of
11/22/63. Good luck with that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Because of
the size of the bruise, the bullet had to NOT be striking the "tip" of the
lung, and was at least an inch into the lung area, and therefore also the
pleura area as well.
Probably the only thing sillier than your reliance on the 20-something
techies is when you throw your own opinions into the mix.
Repeat, I'm not relying on the medical expertise of the Technologists.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR SMALL HEAD!
It seems to be all you have.
Post by mainframetech
Your repeating yourself for the nth time and I'm not interested, so
I'm outa here.
AGAIN!!!
mainframetech
2017-08-13 18:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
WRONG! You just don't listen well. First, you are now trying to say
you know medically better than anyone and can therefore decide on the
qualifications of others. But you're not even a novice medically! So go
soak your head. Second, note above that I pointed out that O'Connor's
medical knowledge wasn't necessary in this case, since we only needed for
him to se certain things and relate them to us. One of which was that the
'doctors' (prosectors) saw the same things that he was relating to us.
This has all been made clear to you many times over, yet you continue to
repeat your ridiculous comment.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious?
WRONG assumption! There is no proof that he was never involved in a
gunshot autopsy in the past.
There is no proof that he ever was and lot's or reasons to believe he
wasn't and those reasons have been given to you. A military hospital would
be an unlikely place to perform a medico-legal autopsy on a murder victim.
It was a poor choice for where to do JFK's autopsy as well.
WRONG! So you think that no murder ever occurs in the military? Or
are you pretending to be an expert about something all over again?

O'Connor saw Bruises and tissue in the body after the organs were
removed, and he was able to relate to us exactly where these things were,
and what it looked like and who else saw what he saw. That's all we need
from him. Give up on trying to make him be the medical boss of the
autopsy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track.
FALSE as usual! I'm not relying on his medical expertise for anything
but his ability to identify the parts of the body that we are involved
with in this discussion. And his experience is plenty for that purpose.
So you think all that is necessary to be able to determine a bullet track
through a body is the ability to identify parts of the body. I guess when
I got that Visible Man kit for my 12th birthday (6 days after the
assassination) I would have been qualified too. If only I could have
received that kit a week earlier, I could have assisted at the autopsy.
How dumb can you get? Don't you listen? We've been over this and
you're repeating yourself over and over. Can't you hear yourself? There
was NO BULLET TRACK to see, so there's no one to see it. When the organs
were removed, it was clear that the bullet stopped at the pleura and right
lung. Even the R made it clear that they had no PATH to follow, and it
basically admits they didn't follow one. Mind you, that AR was signed off
by Pierre Finck, who was definitely a competent forensic pathologist and
Would ballistician to boot. You like to think that the AR was honest, but
if that was the case, then Finck has (in effect) stated that there was NO
PATH for the bullet. Look like you're between a rock and a hard place, or
back in your corner again.

And since you're repeating yourself again, I'm outa here.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 14:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
WRONG! You just don't listen well. First, you are now trying to say
you know medically better than anyone and can therefore decide on the
qualifications of others. But you're not even a novice medically! So go
No, he is using a phony Argument by Authority to cherry pick the
opinions he likes and then call them more qualified.
Post by mainframetech
soak your head. Second, note above that I pointed out that O'Connor's
medical knowledge wasn't necessary in this case, since we only needed for
him to se certain things and relate them to us. One of which was that the
'doctors' (prosectors) saw the same things that he was relating to us.
This has all been made clear to you many times over, yet you continue to
repeat your ridiculous comment.
Well, it might help if he knew his ass from his elbow.
The WC didn't know the neck from the back.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious?
WRONG assumption! There is no proof that he was never involved in a
gunshot autopsy in the past.
There is no proof that he ever was and lot's or reasons to believe he
wasn't and those reasons have been given to you. A military hospital would
be an unlikely place to perform a medico-legal autopsy on a murder victim.
It was a poor choice for where to do JFK's autopsy as well.
WRONG! So you think that no murder ever occurs in the military? Or
are you pretending to be an expert about something all over again?
Which murder are you talking about? If it's a military cover-up they
will just call a murder and accident.
Post by mainframetech
O'Connor saw Bruises and tissue in the body after the organs were
removed, and he was able to relate to us exactly where these things were,
and what it looked like and who else saw what he saw. That's all we need
from him. Give up on trying to make him be the medical boss of the
autopsy.
Bruises? WHich ones? The ones noted on the autopsy report?
WHich tissue? You are being vague.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track.
FALSE as usual! I'm not relying on his medical expertise for anything
but his ability to identify the parts of the body that we are involved
with in this discussion. And his experience is plenty for that purpose.
So you think all that is necessary to be able to determine a bullet track
through a body is the ability to identify parts of the body. I guess when
I got that Visible Man kit for my 12th birthday (6 days after the
assassination) I would have been qualified too. If only I could have
received that kit a week earlier, I could have assisted at the autopsy.
How dumb can you get? Don't you listen? We've been over this and
you're repeating yourself over and over. Can't you hear yourself? There
was NO BULLET TRACK to see, so there's no one to see it. When the organs
There doesn't have to be a bullet track visible and they were forbidden
to see it.
Post by mainframetech
were removed, it was clear that the bullet stopped at the pleura and right
Again, you don't even know what a pleura is.
Post by mainframetech
lung. Even the R made it clear that they had no PATH to follow, and it
basically admits they didn't follow one. Mind you, that AR was signed off
They weren't allowed to. They were under military orders.
Post by mainframetech
by Pierre Finck, who was definitely a competent forensic pathologist and
Would ballistician to boot. You like to think that the AR was honest, but
OK, so let's go with Perry's theory. There was no back wound and the
bullet hit his throat from the front and exited the top of the head.
Would that make you a Perryite?
Post by mainframetech
if that was the case, then Finck has (in effect) stated that there was NO
PATH for the bullet. Look like you're between a rock and a hard place, or
back in your corner again.
No, grasshopper. Just say it was an ICE BULLET. If you want to believe
in impossible things to impress the gullible, go all the way.
Post by mainframetech
And since you're repeating yourself again, I'm outa here.
Funny how you say that in every message and then come back and say the
same thing over and over again.

Remember when Harris quit and said he's never be back?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2017-08-14 14:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
WRONG! You just don't listen well.
Why would I listen to you?
Post by mainframetech
First, you are now trying to say
you know medically better than anyone and can therefore decide on the
qualifications of others.
Let's see. We have two techies with minimal training and no known
experience with autopsies of gunshot victims up against the findings of
the three original pathologists and multiple review panels composed of
some of the top medical examiners in the country. Damn, that's a tough
call as to who is more qualified.
Post by mainframetech
But you're not even a novice medically! So go
soak your head. Second, note above that I pointed out that O'Connor's
medical knowledge wasn't necessary in this case,
Yes I know. The opinions of knowledgeable people aren't necessary to you
in forming your beliefs. In fact those opinions just get in the way so
they are best dismissed.
Post by mainframetech
since we only needed for
him to se certain things and relate them to us.
While ignoring what the real pathologists concluded.
Post by mainframetech
One of which was that the
'doctors' (prosectors) saw the same things that he was relating to us.
Yes they saw the same thing but they concluded something entirely
different. Yet you choose to accept the opinions of the techies and
dismissing not only the original pathologists but every medical examiner
who has reviewed the evidence.
Post by mainframetech
This has all been made clear to you many times over, yet you continue to
repeat your ridiculous comment.
You keep trying to tell us that the opinions of the techies trump the
opinions of the pathologists. Seems rather silly to me.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious?
WRONG assumption! There is no proof that he was never involved in a
gunshot autopsy in the past.
There is no proof that he ever was and lot's or reasons to believe he
wasn't and those reasons have been given to you. A military hospital would
be an unlikely place to perform a medico-legal autopsy on a murder victim.
It was a poor choice for where to do JFK's autopsy as well.
WRONG! So you think that no murder ever occurs in the military?
I'm sure murders have occurred on military bases and in that case the
military justice system would have jurisdiction. What I question whether
in the short time the techies in their early 20s were working at the
Bethesda morgue whether they had taken part in any autopsies on gunshot
victims. It seems highly unlikely they ever would have and you have
presented no evidence to the contrary.
Post by mainframetech
Or
are you pretending to be an expert about something all over again?
No, that's your gig.
Post by mainframetech
O'Connor saw Bruises and tissue in the body after the organs were
removed, and he was able to relate to us exactly where these things were,
and what it looked like and who else saw what he saw. That's all we need
from him. Give up on trying to make him be the medical boss of the
autopsy.
Unfortunately for you the bruises didn't indicate what O'Connor believed
they did. The pathologists knew better. So did the review panels. They
were aware of the bruises and still concluded the bullet exited from the
throat. Instead of trusting those opinions you prefer to go with what the
21 year old techie believed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track.
FALSE as usual! I'm not relying on his medical expertise for anything
but his ability to identify the parts of the body that we are involved
with in this discussion. And his experience is plenty for that purpose.
So you think all that is necessary to be able to determine a bullet track
through a body is the ability to identify parts of the body. I guess when
I got that Visible Man kit for my 12th birthday (6 days after the
assassination) I would have been qualified too. If only I could have
received that kit a week earlier, I could have assisted at the autopsy.
How dumb can you get? Don't you listen? We've been over this and
you're repeating yourself over and over. Can't you hear yourself? There
was NO BULLET TRACK to see, so there's no one to see it.
The saw the entry wound. They saw the bruise to the tip of the pleura.
They saw the damaged strap muscles. They saw the damaged trachea. They
later learned that there had been a bullet hole in the throat. They pretty
well establishes the bullet track.
Post by mainframetech
When the organs
were removed, it was clear that the bullet stopped at the pleura and right
lung.
No that was not clear to anyone qualified to make such a judgement.
Post by mainframetech
Even the R made it clear that they had no PATH to follow, and it
basically admits they didn't follow one.
It admits no suck thing. It identified the trail of tissue damage from the
back wound to the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Mind you, that AR was signed off
by Pierre Finck, who was definitely a competent forensic pathologist and
Would ballistician to boot. You like to think that the AR was honest, but
if that was the case, then Finck has (in effect) stated that there was NO
PATH for the bullet. Look like you're between a rock and a hard place, or
back in your corner again.
Finck said no such thing. You are simply making shit up.
Post by mainframetech
And since you're repeating yourself again, I'm outa here.
Again???
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 23:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
WRONG! You just don't listen well.
Why would I listen to you?
Post by mainframetech
First, you are now trying to say
you know medically better than anyone and can therefore decide on the
qualifications of others.
Let's see. We have two techies with minimal training and no known
experience with autopsies of gunshot victims up against the findings of
the three original pathologists and multiple review panels composed of
some of the top medical examiners in the country. Damn, that's a tough
call as to who is more qualified.
Let's see. YOU have The Three Stooges. 2 paper pushers who had neve
performed an autopsy involving a gun shot wound. Who probed the wound with
a metal bar instead of dissecting it and photographing it and thus
concluded that the cause of the shallow wound was an ICE BULLET! And you
want us to rely on these clowns because you're afraid of the truth?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But you're not even a novice medically! So go
soak your head. Second, note above that I pointed out that O'Connor's
medical knowledge wasn't necessary in this case,
Yes I know. The opinions of knowledgeable people aren't necessary to you
in forming your beliefs. In fact those opinions just get in the way so
they are best dismissed.
And you dismiss all the experts who came after the WC. You want to rely
on the professional liars in the WC. And you call that Patriotism. Sick.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
since we only needed for
him to se certain things and relate them to us.
While ignoring what the real pathologists concluded.
You mean Wecht?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
One of which was that the
'doctors' (prosectors) saw the same things that he was relating to us.
Yes they saw the same thing but they concluded something entirely
different. Yet you choose to accept the opinions of the techies and
dismissing not only the original pathologists but every medical examiner
who has reviewed the evidence.
So, you accept the Ice Bullet Theory? IBT?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This has all been made clear to you many times over, yet you continue to
repeat your ridiculous comment.
You keep trying to tell us that the opinions of the techies trump the
opinions of the pathologists. Seems rather silly to me.
Which pathologists? You mean The Three Stooges?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, when looking into a body,
one needs only to know (for this part of the case) that the bullet
OBVIOUSLY stopped at the pleura and right lung.
How would somebody who had no experience in gunshot autopsies determine
that was obvious?
WRONG assumption! There is no proof that he was never involved in a
gunshot autopsy in the past.
There is no proof that he ever was and lot's or reasons to believe he
wasn't and those reasons have been given to you. A military hospital would
be an unlikely place to perform a medico-legal autopsy on a murder victim.
It was a poor choice for where to do JFK's autopsy as well.
WRONG! So you think that no murder ever occurs in the military?
I'm sure murders have occurred on military bases and in that case the
military justice system would have jurisdiction. What I question whether
in the short time the techies in their early 20s were working at the
Bethesda morgue whether they had taken part in any autopsies on gunshot
victims. It seems highly unlikely they ever would have and you have
presented no evidence to the contrary.
You just don't like whistleblowers. You prefer the professional liars.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Or
are you pretending to be an expert about something all over again?
No, that's your gig.
Post by mainframetech
O'Connor saw Bruises and tissue in the body after the organs were
removed, and he was able to relate to us exactly where these things were,
and what it looked like and who else saw what he saw. That's all we need
from him. Give up on trying to make him be the medical boss of the
autopsy.
Unfortunately for you the bruises didn't indicate what O'Connor believed
they did. The pathologists knew better. So did the review panels. They
were aware of the bruises and still concluded the bullet exited from the
throat. Instead of trusting those opinions you prefer to go with what the
21 year old techie believed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Face it. You are relying entirely on the "expertise" of
O'Connor and Jenkins to establish the bullet track.
FALSE as usual! I'm not relying on his medical expertise for anything
but his ability to identify the parts of the body that we are involved
with in this discussion. And his experience is plenty for that purpose.
So you think all that is necessary to be able to determine a bullet track
through a body is the ability to identify parts of the body. I guess when
I got that Visible Man kit for my 12th birthday (6 days after the
assassination) I would have been qualified too. If only I could have
received that kit a week earlier, I could have assisted at the autopsy.
How dumb can you get? Don't you listen? We've been over this and
you're repeating yourself over and over. Can't you hear yourself? There
was NO BULLET TRACK to see, so there's no one to see it.
The saw the entry wound. They saw the bruise to the tip of the pleura.
They saw the damaged strap muscles. They saw the damaged trachea. They
later learned that there had been a bullet hole in the throat. They pretty
well establishes the bullet track.
Post by mainframetech
When the organs
were removed, it was clear that the bullet stopped at the pleura and right
lung.
No that was not clear to anyone qualified to make such a judgement.
Post by mainframetech
Even the R made it clear that they had no PATH to follow, and it
basically admits they didn't follow one.
It admits no suck thing. It identified the trail of tissue damage from the
back wound to the throat.
Post by mainframetech
Mind you, that AR was signed off
by Pierre Finck, who was definitely a competent forensic pathologist and
Would ballistician to boot. You like to think that the AR was honest, but
if that was the case, then Finck has (in effect) stated that there was NO
PATH for the bullet. Look like you're between a rock and a hard place, or
back in your corner again.
Finck said no such thing. You are simply making shit up.
Post by mainframetech
And since you're repeating yourself again, I'm outa here.
Again???
mainframetech
2017-08-15 12:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
WRONG! You just don't listen well.
Why would I listen to you?
Because you've done so terribly when you don't.



The rest of this is all repetitive stuff of yours, so I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-17 02:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
You are pretending O'Connor had significant experience with gun shot
autopsies.
WRONG! You have NEVER seen me say that O'Connor "significant
experience with gun shot autopsies."
You presented O'Connor's experience in "up to 50-60 autopsies" as if that
was significant. That would only be of significance if at least some of
them were in gunshot cases. Since it is likely none of them ever were, he
was no credentials in determining bullet tracks which is what you are
relying on him for.
WRONG! You can't seem to get anything right. 50-60 autopsies
experience relates to his being able to identify the parts of the body he
reported on seeing and their condition, from being hit with a bullet that
wasn't forceful enough to puncture its way through the tissue of the
pleura. It's the same as if a blunt pointed instrument would have tried
to do the same. Not necessarily a bullet. Anyone's normal physics
knowledge would be acceptable, but he had more than that.
Nothing in O'Connor's experience would qualify him to make a judgement
that a bullet had hit the pleura. Nothing in yours either.
WRONG! You just don't listen well.
Why would I listen to you?
Because you've done so terribly when you don't.
I suppose this is an example of the insightful comments of yours that I
should listen to.
Post by mainframetech
The rest of this is all repetitive stuff of yours, so I'm outa here.
The old hit-and-run.

Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 16:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
How many of those autopsies do you think involved gun shot victims? Few if
any would be my guess.
We don't know. So don't pretend it was none or few.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.
Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.
So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.
O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up the Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.
The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.
Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.
You most certainly are repeating the OPINIONS of these two technicians. It
is their OPINION they saw proof the bullet never penetrated beyond the
pleura.
WRONG! They weren't talking about their opinions of what they saw, they
actually saw the things they stated they saw. That little device won't
get you anywhere. It's squirming to escape on your part.
Post by bigdog
It was their OPINION that when the probe couldn't be passed easily
through the bullet track that was proof the bullet stopped after
penetrating only a few inches.
WRONG! The point of my copying the statement was not to get the
OPINION of O'Connor or Jenkins, but to get what they SAW and who else they
saw that viewed the proof in the body.
Post by bigdog
There are a number of reasons why these
opinions are invalid. They've been explained to you and you continue to
ignore the explanations. These aren't my reasons or opinions.
Once again, OPINIOPNS AR NOT WHAT WE ARE AFTER. WE'RE AFTER THE SIGHTS
SEEN BY THE MEN AND THE DOCTORS THEY ALSO SAW THAT VIEWED THE PROOF.
There was not a situation where there was argument about what was seen,
only what was seen. You can stop trying to get your ridiculous
imagination out of it.
Post by bigdog
They were
explained by Finck during his Clay Shaw testimony. Further, Jenkins
recalled almost three decades later that the bruise was in the middle lobe
of the lung. For some silly reason you find that more compelling the
contemporaneous opinion stated in the autopsy report and signed by all
three pathologists that the bruise was on the upper tip of the pleura and
the lung.
Try not to be too stupid. I stated that there was a disagreement, and
it was between the AR and Jenkins. However, the size of the bruise
answers all we need to prove that the bullet had to stop at the pleura.
The fact that Humes and the others signed a statement that was full of
phony info about the condition of the body doesn't help anything and
actually was a thorn in the side of those trying to legitimately to
determine the cause of death.
Post by bigdog
Given how high the bullet entered JFK's back, how the hell did
it descend to the middle lobe of his lung. As with everything else you
have argued, that makes no sense.
Well, you might want to check the actual location of the back wound.
It looks to be lower than anyone was talking about. That's if the
'leaked' photos are valid. Either way, the fact that the size of the
bruise was a circle 2 inches in diameter tells the tale.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.
Do you wonder why they call it a short shot? Let me clue you in on that.
In the extremely rare circumstance when an underpowered bullet is fired,
it falls well short of the target. It lacks the velocity to reach the
intended target before gravity has brought it down well short of the
target.
You seem to once again have forgotten that if that bullet were fire
from the TSBD, it was fired DOWNWARD, and it didn't have far to travel.
If it was aimed at the head, and hit down the back, I'd say it had lost
some of its energy and gravity took it down. But there ar also other
reasons for the bullet to have been out of energy when it hit the back.
We can argue about it, but it all fits nicely with a 'short shot' no mater
how it was caused.
Post by bigdog
Despite the fact the opinions expressed by the two technicians conflict
with the opinions of the qualified pathologists on the team, the findings
of every review panel, the body of evidence, and the laws of physics, you
continue to cling to them like a security blanket because it is all you
have going for you. It is this sort of reasoning that will prevent you
from every learning the truth of the assassination of JFK.
WRONG! The opinions of the Technologists do NOT differ from the words
of the prosectors until AFTER the autopsy and Humes wrote the AR to the
orders he was given. Note that the prosectors ALL said earlier on that
"There was NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.
As long as you keep repeating the nonsense, I will continue to point out
why it is nonsense.
You have forgotten again that I'm only repeating to correct your
continued errors.
But you are at least correct that there is a lot of repetition in this
thread, so I'll get out of it. You have it all, say all your worst.
Chris
We do know. It was FEW.
That's why they called in Finck.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 14:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
You've gone off and become ridiculous again! You've heard my answer
many times on that question, yet you continue to repeat it over and over
again. Like they say, if you keep doing what you been doing, you'll keep
getting what you been getting. It's a definition of insanity.
I'll answer for everyone that is paying any attention to your continued
First, I must repeat for you that I'm NOT repeating OPINIONS of 2
autopsy assistants, I'm repeating what they saw, not what they thought.
You seem unable to get this through your head.
Second, here is the interview of Paul O'Connor, who had by that time
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Note that the interview does not contain any of the author's
impressions or thoughts, only the words of the subject.
Note that O'Connor was able to see that ALL of the other 'doctors'
(prosectors) and saw they viewed the proof that the pleura was the end of
the line for the bullet path. to take this further, I will show the
interview of the other Technologist who was on the autopsy team, James
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Jenkins corroborates O'Connor's sighting of the pleura completely
undamaged by any bullet, though bruised. But Jenkins saw the probing from
inside the chest cavity with the organs removed. He was able to see the
probing that was going on from the other side, and see that there was no
place for the probe to penetrate the pleura. He also apparently saw the
bruise on the MIDDLE lobe of the lung, and not the top lobe.
So we are dealing with what they saw, not what their OPINIONS were.
O'Connor stated that he saw that the 'doctors' (prosectors) saw the
proof before them that they ALL saw, and that means that when Humes went
off home and wrote up th Autopsy Report (AR) that he lied. At such an
important autopsy, Humes would never have taken the initiative to lie on
his own, so he must have been ordered to say what the did in that AR.
The others that signed off on that AR had to also have been ordered to
lie.
The views of the pleura and the views inside the body were NOT seen by
ANY medical examiners or the medical panels. Absolutely none of them were
able to interview any of the Technicians at the autopsy, and for a long
time there was an 'order of silence' placed on ALL personnel at Bethesda
and the autopsy team. Only the prosectors were allowed to carry their
lies to other trials and hearings.
Since the medical panels had no chance to see the evidence of the pleura
and speak to the participants in the autopsy, they could not possibly have
gotten the correct conclusion of what had happened with the back wound
bullet.
Third, while it is not common for a bullet to lose some of its power
and not penetrate a body too deeply, it has happened, and it is called a
'short shot'. The cause of the bullet losing it's power can be argued,
but not that it happened. The evidence is clear.
Now hopefully, you will stop repeating that question within various
threads, and here to get your name on the topic list with your wild
imaginations of a 'Single bullet' THEORY. face it, you were brainwashed
by the WCR.
Chris
SPAM
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 22:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
For years now you have been insisting that the whole autopsy team saw
proof that the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura. For
now we'll disregard the implausibility of such a thing happening and focus
on one simple question instead.
All three pathologists signed off on a report that says the medical
evidence indicated the bullet which entered JFK's back exited from his
throat and that opinion has been validated by every qualified medical
So what? You mean The Three Stooges? The Parkland doctors said the throat
wound was the entrance and the bullet exited the head. So why didn't yoi
go with those "experts" who actually saw the body? The Three Stooges
didn't even know about the throat wound.
Post by bigdog
examiner who reviewed the medical evidence. On the other hand you have the
opinion of two technicians who were 20 and 21 years old at the time and
decades later expressed their opinion that the bullet had only made a
shallow penetration. So tell us why you find the latter to be more
compelling than the former.
So what? Don't be an Ageist.
Loading...